David Lifton

DSL NOTE: Re-written on 3/3/2018 - 12:20 p.m. PST DVP: You wrote: 'Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview? It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview.' My response: It is not in my interest to “ignore” (much less “totally ignore”) the “context of Dr. Perry’s complete statement in the ’67 interview (which, keep in mind, is the broadcast date. I believe the interview with Barker was conducted in late 1966). My short response to your criticism is: it depends what you mean by “the context”. I am well aware that if one restricts “the context” to that particular sentence in that transcript (or in the audio excerpt) then the statement that Perry said he “rendered it inviolate” makes no sense. However, if one takes into account three other times where the word “inviolate” would apply (Dave Stewart, that day and weekend; Breslin, on 11/23, when he said he performed the trach “below” the wound; and then Robert Groden, in 1977 [“I left the wound inviolate”], and if one enlarges one’s vision to encompass the possibility that this tape has been altered to conceal what Perry actually said—especially if he uttered the word “inviolate” in the context in which (for example) he used it with Groden—then the presence of “inviolate” on that audio track can (and should) be viewed as trace evidence of what he said; specifically, that he may well have said, to Barker, something that was either similar (or identical) with what he had said to Stewart, pr Breslin (11/23), or --years later (1977)--would say to Robert Groden. (when shown the Bethesdsa autopsy photo). Why is that so difficult to understand? As Groden pointed out (to me, and to Pat V., in 1989) when we interviewed him on camera, and when he described his 1977 meeting with Perry, ‘inviolate” is a rather unusual word. For it to appear on that audio track suggests to me that he (Perry) used it on that occasion (i.e., at the time of his interview with Eddie Barker), in the same manner in which he used it on at least three other occasions. You (apparently) want to ignore the importance of this word on the grounds that, when preceded by “rendered it”, the sequence of three words ("rendered it inviolate") makes no sense. My reaction is decidedly different. I argue that, by taking into account the other times this word was uttered by Perry, it is not unreasonable to infer that we are dealing with an altered audio record. Why do I say "altered audio record"? Because: on the occasion tgat we filmed Groden in 1989, we (all three of us) could readily see that visually, what Dr. Perry was saying was clearly “out of sync” with the sound, and that disparity was our justification (our “probable cause,” if you will) for believing that this audio record had been altered. END OF EXPLANATION DVP: Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton: Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all? DSL RESPONSE: I am not arguing that the three-word phrase "rendered it inviolate" makes sense. To the contrary: I agree that --viewed in isolation--it does not make sense. As explained (or at least implied) above: The choice appears to be either: (a) That Perry doesn't know how to use the English language, and is given to making nonsensical utterances; or (b) that the audio record was altered. Based on the other times that he used the word ("inviolate") , it would appear that something is missing. Assuming Perry said actually said "inviolate", he used it in the context that, when he performed the tracheotomy, he he didn't touch the bullet wound; i.e., he "left the [bullet] wound inviolate." And perhaps I should add this other observation: to use the word "inviolate" almost has a defensive quality to it--i.e., that someone had accused Perry of (without meaning to) having altered the wound; and he was responding (in effect) by saying "No, I didn't do that. I left the wound 'inviolate.'" Remember: Dr. Dave Stewart told me that there was a problem or kerfuffle (late that night) at Parkland, when Perry was informed (via a phone call from someone at Bethesda, and I'll bet it was SS Agent Kellerman) that there was a "problem" at the autopsy (or "confusion") because of what "he" (i.e., Perry) had done. So he was at pains to deny it; to say, in effect, "No, you're wrong, I didn't do that." And then came: "I left the wound inviolate". As I said, that is my interpretation of the context in which Perry employed (or should I say "deployed") that word. It was in the context of him defending himself against a charge (even if only implied) that what he had done had caused confusion (or "was causing confusion") at the Bethesda end of the line. END OF EXPLANATION DVP: If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.? DSL RESPONSE: No, of course not. I understsand the basic vocabulary, and why these three words ("rendered it inviolate") don't fit together. But again, I refer you to my lengthy answer above. I’m perfectly aware that “rendered it inviolate” —if Perry actually said that—makes no sense. But the word "inviolate" can be heard, quite distinctly, and so the question is: in what context was it uttered? I believe that the key to the proper interpretation of that word depends on the context; which, specifically in this case, comes down to focusing on the two words preceding it (“rendered it”) which then results in the three-word phrase: "rendered it inviolate." If Perry actually said “rendered it inviolate,” then —agreed—that would make no sense. So how are we to properly interpret this nonsensical phrase? My suggestion: we go to the existing history of how--on other occasions--Perry used that (rather unusual) word. Based on other occasions in which he used that (rather unusual) word, I believe it is not unreasonable to infer that he used that word in conjunction with the phrase (which functioned as a prefix, of sorts): "I left the wound. . . " resulting in the sentence "I left the wound inviolate." It seems to me unreasonable, based on Perry's own "linguistic history" (if I may coin a phrase) to assume that he would use “inviolate” in order to say the opposite --i.e., that by not cutting through the wound, he rendered it "inviolate." What might be plausible (but rather a clumsy use of language) would be if he meant to say that by cutting through the wound, he (by "cutting") had “rendered it invalid." (And that is what the transcript published in the back of the Steve White book states). So what is one to make of this linguistic conundrum? It comes down to whether this audio track was tampered with or not. You (apparently) are operating on the assumption that its genuine, that it was not altered. I react to this linguistic puzzle quite differently. I believe (and all three of us believed, based on the way Perry's lips were moving quite obviously in a manner that made no sense based on the words being uttered) that the tape had been altered. That we were viewing a clumsily altered audio record. And that’s the reason all of us took Groden ’s tape to that rather expensive “sound shop” in either Philadelphia or Trenton, spent an hour or two there, and prepared video excerpts to document our suspicions. You have responded to our action by saying (in effect): "It wasn't altered. It was your playback machine. Here, let me show you my copy. It plays perfectly." Do you really believe that you producing your "copy" --in 2018--is an answer to what we experienced back in June 1989, and which drove us to go to that audio house, and to spend good money to prepare video samples for further study? To recap: I’m not being at all unreasonable in my beliefs. On several occasions, Perry said that he “left the wound inviolate.” He said that to Groden in 1977; and Stewart says that's the word he used on 11/22 and over that weekend. And the next day he told Breslin that he performed the tracheotomy "below" the bullet wound. Note what Perry did not say. He never said, on any of these occasions, that he “rendered it inviolate.” He said he “left it inviolate.” And its precisely for that reason that I suspect that the tape was altered. Moreover, the Steve White book, in its transcript (located at the back) uses the word “invalid,” so that is either an innocent transcriber error (which I doubt) or a deliberate "editorial" correction. In other words, its my belief that someone (either Eddie Barker or Dan Rather) lobbied with Steve White that "here's what the tape sounds like, so you should correct that transcript you are publishing to reflect what Perry apparently meant to say." That's the sort of thing that I believe took place, and which explains the way the Steve White version of the CBS transcript reads: it is identical in every way to the "official" CBS transcript except for that one phrase (!). SANDY LARSEN'S CONJECTURE Sandy Larsen’s conjecture that the printed version of Perry's testimony (as published, in Vol 3 of the WC's 26 volumes) may not reflect what he actually said, is important; and that’s why I will be ordering a photocopy of the actual steno tape, to check out that possibility. If the printed version of the transcript published in Volume 3 does not reflect what is actually on the steno tape, that would be very important. On the other hand, please note: if the printed version was (editorially) changed, and then that changed version was "re-transcribed," then the printed version and the steno tape would "match" and such a change--if it occurred--would be undetectable. (I am making these comments because of experience with this in another instance of this in the WC's 26 volumes). But .. . . if done "sloppily"--i.e., changed in the printed version, but without a re-transcription, then that should be easy to spot. Should that prove to be true—and I don’t know that one way or the other—that would be very important; and constitute definitive evidence of the kind of “audio fraud” that is going on here. Also, on the subject of context, let's return to the actual situation, as it unfolded that night at Bethesda: I described how the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue with the neck area all messed up (esophagus and trachea torn and damaged), and how that damage, in turn, is apparently relates to the suturing of that "wound" --suturing which is spelled out (in detail) in Chapter 23 of Best Evidence. (Indeed, Chapter 23 is devoted to that specific issue). As already stated in Best Evidence (in Chapter 11, titled "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda", there already exists sound reason(s) for believing something happened to the body in the area of the neck. Why? Because both Humes (before the Warren Commission) and Finck (at the Shaw trial) could find any evidence of a bullet wound (!). This is all laid out, in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.) But now let's return to the situation as it actually unfolded ("in real time") on Friday night, 11/22/63, at the Bethesa morgue. As previously stated (in a previous post on this thread): when I wrote Chapter 23 (circa 1979/1980) I did not know when (or where) that suturing was done. But now I do (and will provide details in Final Charade). If my current analysis is correct (that the suturing occurred just prior to the arrival of the FBI (at 7:17 EST) at the Bethesda morgue; and if my other conclusion is correct (that the sutured area was deliberately passed off, to the FBI, as a tracheotomy made at Parkland Hospital), then that provides still further context--specifically, vital context as to why there might have been audio fraud in this situation. In other words, something was indeed being deliberately hidden. The President's body arrived messed up; the tracheotomy wound was sutured shut (to conceal that); and Perry was then called and pressured to take responsibility for that anatomic mess. PERRY AND "HIGHER AUTHORITY" Let me add one other observation: I do not believe Perry would have simply testified falsely about having made an incision through the throat wound--if he did not (i.e., if he did not make any such incision)--unless, prior to that testimony, he was given private assurances --by "higher authority" that he should testify in that fashion. In other words, I do not believe that Perry would testify falsely in March 1964, before Chief Justice Warren, because of an unpleasant phone call he had received late on the night of November 22, 1963. There must have been more to it than that. In Final Charade, I will offer evidence of who was the "higher authority" and how that occurred in other situations as well. Perry's non-response to the unfolding controversy has always intrigued me. He claims he never read an of the books and never followed any aspect of the controversy. More on that, too, in Final Charade. END OF DSL RESPONSE DVP: Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word (“invalid/inviolate")?.... DSL RESPONSE: As I said above, I think that the two-word phrase “rendered it”, preceding the word “inviolate”, results in a three-word phrase that is nonsensical. Hence, my conclusion: unless Perry was uttering nonsense, the audio tape was altered. END OF RESPONSE DVP: "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…" DSL RESPONSE: I am not sure what to make of this statement. (And by the way: What does Perry mean by "or why"?) The reason I believed it was very likely not true was because Stewart told the Nashville Banner in (I believe) November 1967, that Perry did not have to make an incision. But just maneuvered the trach tube into the throat, using the pre-existing bullet hole as his orifice of entry. I am endeavoring to retrieve that story, as published, in the Nashville Banner. If I obtain a copy, I will post it --or the text of what it says--on this thread. END OF RESPONSE DVP: Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct? DSL RESPONSE: Yes, DVP. We've (already) been through all that. Those words do not make sense, and that's precisely why I believe that the audio tape must have been altered. (If someone who knows mathematics is caught on tape saying "Two plus three equals seven", what are we to think?) It all comes down to the validity of the audio tape. Based on the other statements (already cited) that Perry made, I don’t trust the audio tape. You, apparently do. I find this odd, but maybe I shouldn't. After all, despite all the Dallas doctors who insist there was a blow-out at the back of the head, you revel in posting a back-of-the head autopsy photograph which, you blithely claim, depicts the reality, whereas just about all the credible Dallas medical witnesses claim it does not. (Sometimes I think you have an affinity for falsified evidence. You just love to roll around in that stuff, the way, on a farm. . . oh, I'd rather not have to complete that sentence. DVP: Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things. DSL RESPONSE: I don’t believe this is a matter of interpretation. For example: if Steve White had a audio tape on which he clearly heard (or believed he heard) the word “inviolate,” then he should have said so in his book; he should have spelled out the problem, and discussed it. And not just changed the word (or three words), in his transcript, and said nothing aboiut the implications. That's why I suspect that, one way or another, this was (in effect) "foisted" on him; i.e., that he was deceived. END OF RESPONSE DVP: But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever. DSL RESPONSE: No, DVP, I do not subscribe to your idea..When this whole affair is viewed in proper context, then (if we had a Special Prosecutor in this case) that Prosecutor would have asked (behind closed doors, of course): Who the heck altered the body? (And given the plethora of evidence that the body was covertly intercepted and altered, that you, and your peculiar ideas that nothing is wrong with the evidence would be subject to considerable ridicule). I'll tell you what such a (hypothetical) Special Prosecutor would be interested in: such an investigation would be interested in the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, on November 2 and November 3, 1966; and especially the second one where, confronting him with the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area" (which he knew nothing about, until that day), he exclaimed "I'm not responsible for their reports!" and then, just a bit later in that same conversation, he exclaimed: "I'd like to know by whom it was done. . and when . . and where!" (See Chapter 8 of B.E., where all this is described in detail). Surely such an investigation might have put Humes and asked: "Commander Humes, why did you say those things? And what did you mean by "it" when you blurted out, with considerable vehemence, "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where?!" So that's the context in which to properly view the possible falsification of this particular audio record. So no, DVP, I do not agree. Perry's use of clumsy language cannot be discarded or set aside in the manner that you are wont to do. To proceed in that fashion, you have to ignore the multiple occasions in which Perry used the word “inviolate,” —preceded by the words “I left the wound” etc. What you seem to he doing, DVP, is cherry-picking when it comes to context; to choosing the context (or “defining the context” if I may coin a term) in such a way that it supports your interpretation. I say: Let’s enlarge the context and take into account the full picture; and that includes all the times that Perry used the word “inviolate” to fully understand what he meant when he used that word. And also, to understand the (wider) context, at Bethesda that night, in which this problem developed. END OF RESPONSE

Denny Zartman: Thanks for the kind remarks. Please email me at DSL74@Cornell.edu, because I would like to communicate with you briefly, but in private. Thanks. DSL

Micah: You are absolutely correct when you ask "Doesn't the 1979 Robert Groden interview [make] it clear what he [Perry} means by "inviolate"? Of course it does. Without any question. Perry was looking at the stare-of-death autopsy photo, slowly shaking his head from side to side, and said that this wasn't the way he left the throat wound; that is, he left it "inviolate." Furthermore, upon returning to Los Angeles, I contacted the Baltimore reporter and asked if he recollected the interaction. He said he did, but didn't recall Perry's exact words. What he did remember: that Perry was displeased, and/or upset, because this wasn't the way he left the wound. To those following this thread: this is not simply an argument about what Perry said to Eddie Barker in late 1966, as broadcast in June 1967. Ultimately, this is an argument about what Perry said, starting with the moment after he left ER-1 on 11/22/63, and we have a plethora of data to address that point. At the risk of being repetitious: On 11/23/63, he told Jimmy Breslin that he performed the tracheotomy "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin included that in the story he wrote that day, and which was published in the next day's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If he performed the trach below the bullet wound, then he left the bullet wound "intact", or "inviolate". Based on what Perry said to Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, 11/23/63, he did not touch that bullet wound. Note to David Von Pein: Stop ignoring what Perry told Jimmy Breslin, and stop dispensing your disinformation and other garbage all over the Internet, like an unclean garbage truck moving through the streets of a community, without a muffler. Go get an intellectual muffler and put it over your mouth before you keep dispensing your false information. Over that weekend, and in the days following, Perry made clear to Dr. Dave Stewart that he did not touch or alter the bullet wound in any way. He said that he left the wound "inviolate." I know what Dr. Stewart said, because (a) he said something very similar to the Nashville Banner in November 1967; and (b) I spoke with Stewart by phone in 1982, and then Pat V and I did an extensive filmed interview with him in June 1989. Stewart told me, repeatedly, and with emphasis, that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate." Note To David Von Pein: Affix your muffler before driving your garbage truck through the Internet community, consisting of many who are serioiusly interested interested in the truth about this issue, and not your false and misleading statements. In 1977, when Groden--then employed by the HSCA--visited Dr. Perry in New York City, and showed him the stare-of-death photo, Perry looked at the photo, shook his sadly from side to side, and said that what the Bethesda showed wasn't the way he left the wound. "I left the wound inviolate," he told Groden, as related to me, by Groden, on camera, in June 1989. Again, David Von Pein: affix that muffler, before cluttering up the atmosphere with foul smoke. Finally, we come to the one "wild card" in this affair--exactly what Perry said when interviewed by Eddie Barker. We have two kinds of records--an audio record, which --for whatever reason--is contradictory and confusing; and a transcript record. Regarding the transcript record, a friend of mine just located the CBS transcript that is posted at the Dan Rather website. I'm not saying this is the last word, because I haven't located my own records, created after my 1989 interview with Dr. Stewart. But here's what the CBS transcript for Part 2 of the 1967 four-part series says: BARKER: Did it occur to you at the time, or did you think, was this an entry wound, or was this an exit wound? PERRY: Actually, I didn't really give it much thought. And I realize that perhaps it would have been better had I done so. But I actually applied my energies, and those of us there all did, to the problem at hand, and I really didn't 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. But it didn't even occur to me. I did what was expedient and what was necessary, and I didn't think much about it. The link for this transcript comes from a "Dan Rather" website. Here's the link: https://danratherjournalist.org/investigative-journalist/early-reporting-cbs/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report/results/document-warre-0 The key words in this transcript are "rendered it inviolate." Keep in mind: this is just a transcript; normally, we would (and should) believe that it is 100% faithful to the words that were spoken; but I don't believe that can be taken for granted in this case. I still want to get three items: (1) the CBS transcript as published at the back of the Steve White book (and I should have that within a week); and (2) The transcript that was on file at the Gerald Ford library and (3) my own copy of the CBS transcript that I received from CBS News back in 1967, when this four-part program was first aired. One other matter: in this transcript--call it the "Dan Rather CBS transcript"--the words "inviolate as regards further" appears to be ever-so-slightly below the rest of that line in the typed transcript. But that issue deserves further study. DSL - 3/2/19 7 PM PST Orange County, California

Sandy, Yes, there are definitely two different versions of the transcript, as I have already indicated in my post(s). LOCATING THE ORIGINAL CBS TRANSCRIPT I will do the best I can to get both versions, and post them. But. . . It won't happen overnight, because I've got over 45 5 drawer filing cabinets of material, in storage, and an additional ten or twenty cabinets about 100 miles from where I'm now living. However, I will attempt to retrieve the original (unaltered) version--with "inviolate"--by requesting it from a third party. Just two or three days ago, scanning a terrabyte disk, I came across what I believe was a 1989 or 1990 memo I wrote about this situation, when I had both transcripts in front of me, and I believe I can retrieve that memo, and post the appropriate text from that memo. But I'm sure that everyone would like to see both transcripts. As I've already stated, the one with "rendered it invalid" is at the back of the Steve White book, available at Amazon, "Should we now believe the Warren Report." The other will have to come either from the Ford Library, or from my own files. I kept meticulous files re those four June 1967 broadcasts. As I just noted, the only problem is, they are now in storage. But anyone reading this post--who obtained their transcript from CBS News in New York City, should have the same transcript that I had in my files, and which I always had assumed was identical to what was published in the Steve White Book. 1989 (approx) DISCOVERING THE TRANSCRIPT DISCREPANCY What astonished me was discovering, after returning to Los Angeles in 1989 after interviewing Dr. Stewart and Robert Groden, that that was not so. I was amazed when I saw that one said "inviolate", which is exactly what Groden said Perry said to him, when he visited him in 1977, in New York City; and what Dave Stewart said repeatedly, and with great emphasis, both in 1982, when I interviewed him on the phone; and in 1989, when Pat V. and I interviewed him, on camera, at his home. And the other said "invalid" --i.e. rendered it invalid. Two different phrases; two different transcripts. There it was. RE-INTERPRETING WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BETHESDA MORGUE What I did not have--back in 1989--was the realization of the extent to which JFK's body arrived at Bethesda with the throat area being such a ripped up mess (as described in the previous post I wrote on this thread); and "connecting the dots" and realizing that that was the reason for the suturing. But now I have "connected those dots" and have a much better understanding of what is (that is "was") going on here. It has also become much more clear to me why someone made up the story that the reason the throat looked so different at Bethesda was that Dr. Perry did a "sloppy" tracheotomy; and then prevailed up Perry to go along with that. What was being hidden, of course, is the fact that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy. What emerges from all this is there are (at least) two distinct paths to proving body alteration: what happened in the area of the head, and what happened in the area of the neck. And then, of course, there's the evidence of interception (body bag, shipping casket, empty coffin, etc.) TENTATIVE PLANS RE A RE-ISSUE OF BEST EVIDENCE When Best Evidence is re-issued, I will be writing an "Addendum", or perhaps issue a separate "e-book addendum" addressing some two dozen areas where matters have crystallized and cleaning up a various of loose ends. But that's another subject. . and I don't wish to be diverted into writing about that, in this post. Note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you, and much of your "argument" about the JFK case, is going to end up in the dustbin of history; and this matter of the throat wound, and "rendered it invalid" versus "inviolate" (and the business of two transcripts) is a perfect example. I do not know whether someone at CBS messed with the audio, and created --shall we say--a "modified" audio record (for the benefit of author Steve White); But I can damn well tell you that there are two different transcripts of Part 2 of that show, because I had them both in front of me, back in 1989, and was astonished by this discovery. So you're behaving like a fool if you wish to believe that I made this up. MY ORIGINAL BELIEF AND HOW IT CHANGED Also, to anyone reading this thread, please note: I used to believe--that is I "originally believed" --that Perry said "rendered it invalid" because, relying on the Steve White Book, that's what the CBS transcript published in that book stated. So for years--between 1982, when I first spoke with Dr. Stewart on the telephone, and even through June 1989, when (at Pat V's insistence) we interviewed him on camera, at his home--I continued to believe that he must be mistaken. Let me repeat that: I originally believed that Dr. Stewart was mistaken, and held that belief for at least seven years (1982 - 1989). It was only two days after filming Dr. Stewart, when Pat and I went to Robert Groden's home in Media, Pennsylvania, that the combination of what Groden said, and the video he showed us, caused me to completely reverse my position. June 1989: WHAT HAPPENED AT GRODEN'S HOME First of all, Groden showed us his high quality copy of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry by Eddie Barker. Pat and I, sitting in separate chairs, were watching that intently. Remember: we had just come from interviewing Dr. Stewart, two days before. in Tennessee. We listened attentively as Dr. Stewart, repeating what he had told me on the telephone in 1982 (as I recall) and perhaps sensing my skepticism, said something like: "Hell, what Perry told me he said on national TV, in that CBS Special that was broadcast back in 1967! Go watch that TV special. Its right there! You will see he said 'inviolate' !". I was polite, but skeptical. The key word here was "inviolate." Dr. Stewart repeatedly told us that that's what Dr. Perry had told him--that he had left the wound "inviolate." Then, two days later, we were in Groden's home. We asked Groden if he had that interview, and he said that he did, and we asked if we could see it. He agreed. So that led to the unforgettable scene of Groden putting the cassette into the player, and perhaps even doing something else while Pat and I watched the show. When we got to that moment in the tape, and when we heard the word "inviolate," we both rose up out of our chairs, and exclaimed, "What?!!!" Groden wanted to know what the fuss was all about, and we declined to tell him, because we had not yet interviewed him, on camera, and wanted to have that "first tell" on camera, and unrehearsed. So we just stayed mum (which Groden understood, and respected) but told him that we had something special, and reassured him that would tell him what it was once we were on camera. THE STORY OF GRODEN'S 1977 VISIT WIth Dr. PERRY Then, as we prepared for the "on-camera" part of our visit, Groden related to us how he (and the Baltimore reporter) had paid a visit to Dr. Perry, when he was practicing medicine in New York City, and showed him the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo. (According to a computer record I have, Groden said that occurred in 1977, not in 1979 as I had previously written on this thread). He related what happened. Perry looked at the photo, slowly shook his head side to side, sadly, and said words to the effect that that wasn't the way he left it. And then he said: "I left the wound inviolate." There it was--that same word: "inviolate"! Pat and I looked at each other in amazement, because now it was truly important that we get all this on camera--and that it not be rehearsed in any way. Groden saw that we were both quite excited by what he had just told us, and asked, quite earnestly, "What is this all about?" We wouldn't say. We insisted that he just calm down and wait until we were on camera (which he did) and then --after he had told us what happened in New York City, with Perry--that then we would tell him. And that's exactly what we did. REGARDING THE WORD "INVIOLATE" AS SPOKEN BY DR. PERRY --TO ROBERT GRODEN--IN 1977 Regarding the word "inviolate": Groden stated that he knew what the word meant, but had never heard it used in spoken conversation before--that is, until the day he and the reporter visited Perry in New York City. All of this was repeated, by Groden, as soon as we set up the lights and camera--the whole story of his NYC visit with Dr Perry, and how Perry reacted to seeing the face-up autopsy photograph for the first time, and what he said. Then we told him why we believed what he had told us was so significant. We probably told him about our filmed interview with Dr. Stewart one or two days previously, and how Stewart had used the identical word: "inviolate." Finally, we told Groden why we (Pat V and I) had such a startle reaction on hearing what Perry said when Groden had played for us his copy of the Eddie Barker interview, and what we heard Perry say: "inviolate." VISITING THE AUDIO LAB IN PHILADELPHIA OR TRENTON All of this led to the three of us then going back to the Eddie Barker interview of Perry, playing it over and over again, noticing the fact that Perry's lips were moving out of sync with the words, and so forth. That led to us going into either Philadelphia (or Trenton, New Jersey) the next day, and paying a pretty penny to put the tape up on a very high quality audio system, and making some demo excerpts to establish the divergences we saw and which were, frankly, quite obvious. So. . that's where matters stand now. A side note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you, and much of your views will end up in the dustbin of history. You're obviously a good collector, but your behavior on the Internet has been that of a propagandist. spewing disinformation and misinformation to new generations interested in the JFK case; and, in general, the world at large. You once said that your interest in the JFK case started when you read my book. What a shame that you're going to end up with a tawdry legacy, one marked by so many episodes of such intellectual dishonesty. DSL 3/2/2018 - 4:45 p.m. PST Orange County, California

Andrej, Thanks for your comments and observations. (And I want to also thank David Josephs, for his commentary about “cutting”; Micah Mileto, for getting me started on this thread, and deciding to share some of my research, and to seek feedback; and Sandy Larsen, especially for his comment that the actual WC transcript may have been altered. . . which means that I’m going to have to ask NARA to make me a copy of the steno tape, and get that “read” properly, just to either confirm that the printed transcript is accurate, or to find out what edits where made, if any). Meanwhile, and addressing the point you asked your son. . Here’s the problem with Perry, whom I spoke to only once, in 1966, but who I was told --last July--that he read my book and respected my work (really? who knows)... : In the beginning, and for many years, I thought he was squeaky clean, the perfect Boy Scout. Now, I’m not so sure, he may be involved in a cover-up, and here’s why. Once Perry found out --somehow-- that the body had been messed with before it arrived at Bethesda, he (no doubt) wanted to distance himself from any indication that he might have been involved; so he said, in effect, “No, I didn’t touch that wound. I left it just as I found it,” etc. So. . .: the next day, when speaking with Breslin, he made it an important point to say that he made his incision “below” the bullet wound. Then came his statement(s): that he left the wound “inviolate.” So. . let me pose this question: was it “inviolate” because he made a trach incision “below” the bullet hole? Or “inviolate” because he never had to make an incision at all ? ? Frankly, I don’t know. Perry’s changed accounts, and the manner in which he was badgered and scolded (by Allen Dulles [!]) for having said the throat wound was an entry—and practically forced to retract (to “walk that back”, in the current vernacular), make me wonder just where the truth lies. In seeking to distance himself from the situation, did he make up a story to Breslin? i.e., that he performed the trach “below” the bullet hole? Or was he telling the truth when he said he left it inviolate, because he never had to make an incision, at all, and actually entered through the pre-existing bullet hole? DSL 3/2/2018 - 7:50 a.m. PST

To David Andrews: Couldn't agree more. But make sure to read the edited version of the extensive post that I just finished, and posted above (just preceding Larry Hancock's post). DSL Friday, 3/2/2018 - 7:12 a.m. PST

Andrej (and others who are following the details that I have posted, on this thread, about this rather complex situation) A few observations because I don’t have time to write the a perfectly organized post, which would deal with every conceivable criticism, which I attempted previously. NUMBER 1: One should not forget the psychological dynamic that, quite likely, propelled Dr. Perry to make the statement(s) that he did. That dynamic begins with one or more calls received at Parkland, from Bethesda (and its not clear from exactly who, but I suspect Secret Service) late on the night of 11/22/63 complaining that there was confusion at the autopsy and blaming that confusion on what the Dallas doctors had done to the throat wound. Perry did not have an autopsy photograph (of the kind that I published)—i.e., the stare-of-death photo. So he didn’t have a “visual understanding” of the problem. What he was receiving was a verbal description of a most embarrassing “problem,” and he was being blamed. (The foregoing is the general impression I have gotten from my conversations with Dr. Stewart). All Perry knew was that he was being blamed for, in effect, having messed up the wound, because of the tracheotomy he had had performed. That was the bottom line. Perry’s reaction was to say (in effect) “I did nothing of the kind. I didn’t touch the wound or alter it in any way!” Most specifically, Perry told Jimmy Breslin (the next day, 11/23) that he performed the tracheotomy “below” the bullet wound. By implication, he was saying: “I didn’t touch that wound. I left it alone.” That was the situation, as described by Perry (to Breslin) on Saturday, 11/23/63, and it was published in Breslin’s account on Sunday, 11/24/63 (in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)—and then reprinted verbatim in the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963. NUMBER 2: WHAT DR. DAVE STEWART SAID HAPPENED ON 11/22/63, and in the days following Dr. Dave Stewart, who spoke with Perry (and the other doctors) that weekend claims that Perry made the point to him that he “left the wound inviolate.” He didn’t say he “rendered it invalid.” He said that he “left it inviolate.” I know this because that’s what Stewart told me when we spoke, at length, by phone in 1982; and then again, when he discussed the situation in detail with me, on camera, in 1989. Again: he never spoke to me about “rendering [anything] invalid.” He spoke about having “left it inviolate.” NUMBER 3: What Dr. Stewart Told the Nashville [Tenn.] Banner in November 1967 In a front-page article, Dr. Stewart recalled that Perry did not have to make an incision, because he was able to gain access to the trachea by going in through the pre-existing bullet wound. (Currently, I am making efforts to retrieve that story). NUMBER 4: What Stewart told me in June 1989 When I interviewed Dr. Stewart, on camera, in June 1989, the matter was brought up again; and—at that time—Stewart said that if I would just watch the June 1967 CBS broadcast, in which Perry was interviewed (by Eddie Barker), I would be able to see this for myself. Stewart said that it was plain as day that Perry said “inviolate.” Go find a tape of that broadcast and listen to it, said Stewart. You can hear it for yourself. Its right there on the broadcast. (This filmed interview with Stewart was conducted on June ___, 1989). And two days later, Pat V and I visited with Groden, at his home in Media, Pennsylvania (not Hopelawn, New Jersey, as previously stated) prepared to conduct a filmed interview with Groden, and having no idea that he (and a Baltimore news reporter) had shown the autopsy photos to Dr. Perry, at his New York City office, in 1977. But that turned out to be quite important. Groden told us of the incident, and told us what happened (when he showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph). Groden said that Perry looked at the picture, shook his head slowly from side to side, and said (sadly) words to the effect that that was not the way he left the wound. “I left the wound inviolate,” said Perry. We were both astounded, because “inviolate” was the word that Dr. Stewart had used, just two days before. Groden happened to have that CBS tape, and played it for us, and that’s when the word came up again: we (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.” The fact that Perry said “inviolate”—and did not use the word “invalid” and did not say “rendered it invalid”—was confirmed just a few years ago, when this issue was discussed –in detail--on the private Paul Hoch email chain. Gary Mack, as Curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, retrieved a high quality copy of the Eddie Barker interview and listened to it, and confirmed, to the group, that Dr. Perry had indeed said that he had left the wound “inviolate.” A day or so later, JFK Researcher Todd Vaughan, who has had a highly analytical approach to the evidence, and who (himself) had a very high quality tape of the Perry interview, came on line, and told the group that he, too, had listened to his tape, and that Perry definitely said “inviolate.” All very well, but then why was it that I had a firm recollection that what I recalled was the CBS transcript of the CBS show stated that Perry said “I rendered it invalid”? NUMBER 5: The transcript discrepancy When I returned to Los Angeles, in the aftermath of the Groden interview, I set out to resolve the problem of why it was that I believed that the transcript of the interview stated that Perry said he had “rendered it invalid” whereas Todd Vaughan’s transcript, an official CBS transcript from the Gerald Ford library, clearly stated that Perry said that he left the wound inviolate. I soon found the answer to that problem, and it revolved around the transcript of the CBS show that was published in the back of a 1968 book by Steve White (of CBS) titled: “Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?” Years before, I had photocopied that transcript and it was in my files as “the transcript” of the CBS show. But now, when I compared my transcript (from the White book) with the one I had received from CBS in New York City years before, it was clear that they were identical in every respect except for one sentence (!). In Part 2 of the four-part CBS show, the transcript in White’s book had Perry saying that “I rendered the wound invalid.” Whereas the transcript that I had from CBS in New York (and which Todd Vaughan had obtained from the Gerald Ford Library) said “I left the wound inviolate" (from recollection). NUMBER 6: Was the tape altered (or was there a clumsy attempt to do that?) When I was in Groden’s home, and watching multiple replays of that art of the CBS tape, it was clear to me that someone had attempted to monkey with the tape, because the audio was indistinct, and the lip movements of Perry were definitely out of sync with what he was supposedly saying: that he “left the wound invalid.” It wasn’t too long before I put “two plus two” together, and realized that someone had attempted to deceive the author (Steve White) into believing that Perry had said “I rendered the wound invalid” when in fact he had said “I left the wound inviolate.” The alteration of the transcript plus the blatant and easily observable attempt to fiddle with the audio made clear that this was all quite deliberate, and someone had tried to deceive the author and to hide from the pubic the truth about what Perry had said. This was solid evidence, and it wasn’t just in “audio” form. The two transcripts, differing only in that one sentence, was the proof. NUMBER 7A: Was the throat wound altered, after the body left Parkland Hospital, and prior to autopsy? The short answer is "yes, absolutely." There are two ways to approach this problem--first, to compare the length of the tracheotomy incision that Dr. Perry made (in Dallas) with the length of the wide gash that is reported in the Bethesda autopsy. This is the subject of Chapter 11, of Best Evidence, titled: The Tracheotomy Incision, Dallas vs Bethesda. I called Perry on 10/27/66, had a detailed conversation with him on this subject, and he told me that the incision he made was "2-3 cm." Commander Humes, the Chief autopsy surgeron at Bethesda, testified that the horizontal "wound" that he found was "7- 8 cm." More to the point, when I interviewed the Dallas doctors (after I spoke with Perry, back in the fall of 1966), I asked about the wound edges. They all said "smooth", or "smooth, of course, Perry used a knife". (They obviously did not all see the wound, becuase anyone who entered the room after Carrico first intubated Kennedy with an endotracheal tube, would probably not have very much of a view of Perry's tracheotomy); but, nevertheless, I am only reporting what I was told. But here's the main point: at Bethesda, the autopsy report states that the horizontal "wound" had "widely gaping irregular edges." As I said, this is the "traditional" way of ascertaining whether there was a "change" between Parkland and Bethesda, but there are two more points, and perhaps three more points, worth making. And these points make it crystal clear that of course the body was altered --post Parkland, but "pre-Bethesda." Read on. . . 7B: Commander Humes testified that, when he received the body, there was no longer any evidence of the original trach. It was simply gone. This point is made in Chapter 11 of B.E.; and is supplemented by another pieces of testimony--from Col. Pierre Finck, the forensic pathologist from AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who was the third autopsy surgeon), at the 1969 Shaw trial. Finck testifed. Finck testified that he could not detect any evidence of a trach having been performed--there was no trace evidence of its prior existence--and that he carefully examined the horizontal "wound" (which more or less looks like a gash). He was most specific on this point, stating his puzzlement at this situation: "I do not know what it was not there." (From recollection; see Chapter 11 for details). But there is still more. . . 7C: The account of Paul O'Connor (about the condition of the throat) The late Paul O'Connor is well known for his account that JFK's body arrived in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket. (See Chapter 26 of B.E., and the Best Evidence Research Video, posted on the Internet). But when I first interviewed him in August 1979 (and in later interviews, too) I made sure to get his account of what the throat wound looked like. O'Connor said that both the esophagus and the trachea were damaged, and exposed, and words to the effect that one of them was actually hanging out of the large hole in the front of the throat. Clearly such damage was not caused by Dr. Perry's tracheotomy, regardless of exactly what orifice he used to get to the trachea--i.e., whether he actually made an incision, or just entered through the small pre-existing bullet hole. However he obtained access to the trachea, that would not have left behind a trail of damage (better described as "anatomical carnage") that included a ripped and torn esophagus. That's just ridiculous. 7D: The sewing up of the damaged throat area Chapter 23 of Best Evidence is devoted to the evidence that, when Dr. Ebersole saw the body, what he later learned was the "Parkland tracheotomy" had been sutured shut. See Chapter 23 for details; but I did not know, when I wrote B.E., just when Ebersole made his observation, or when and where the suturing had been done. But now I do. Here's what is new, and establishes a major coverup by Humes and "the Admirals" who were present, and from whom he was taking orders. Now I know. It was done in the Bethesda morgue, and just prior to the arrival of the two FBI agents. Thus, Humes and those "Admirals" were responsible for the suturing, and --furthermore--misleading the FBI into believing that it had been done in Dallas, where a tracheotomy had been performed. That is felony obstruction of justice, plain and simple. The body arrived in a messed up condition, it was ordered that that area be "sutured" shut; that was done, and the FBI agents were mislead with a story that the sutures were the site of a tracheotomy, which had bee performed in Dallas. Readers who have followed my work will understand why I have now changed my position about Dr. Humes. He was not a "before-the-fact" plotter; but neither was he "squeaky clean." I do not know how much (if at all) Dr. Perry learned about this mess, but one can understand that Perry he became aware of the way the body looked at Bethesda, he would certainly want to distance himself from the situation. NUMBER 8: SUMMARIZING THE MAJOR POINTS: Starting on the night of November 22, 1963, someone in authority at Bethesda called Parkland, and (apparently) spoke to Perry, and told Perry that he (apparently) was to blame for certain confusion at Bethesda, because of the tracheotomy he had performed (!). Perry’s response, in effect, was to say, “I had nothing to do with it! I never altered that wound!” And, perhaps, he might have said: “I left the wound inviolate.” From that point on, Perry was very defensive on the subject of just where he had cut, and what what he had cut, in performing the tracheotomy. So the next day he made a point of telling Breslin that he had performed the tracheotomy “below” the pre-existing bullet wound. Topologically speaking, that meant there were two separate holes at the front of the neck. The (original) bullet wound, and, in addition, any cutting that he had done. That was Perry’s way—on 11/23/63,when he spoke with Breslin—of disassociating himself from any responsibility for any other cutting that had been done. NUMBER 9: The response of some people on this thread Today, reviewing some of the posts on this thread, I see that some folks have taken the time to listen to the tape, and report (in good faith) they hear “I rendered it invalid”. Yes, that’s probably an “audio interpretation” that one can make; but so what? As I have laid out in this post, the record amply supports the fact that it was Perry’s position, from 11/22/63 and onward, that he had not disturbed the original wound, and, on numerous occasions, stated that he “left the wound inviolate.” DSL NOTE, 3/5/2018 -1 AM PST: On the other hand, Perry testified on 3/30/64, under oath, to Chief Justice Warren, that he made an incision right through the wound (!). This sworn testimony alone (in Vol 3 of the 26 Volumes) should make clear that Perry made contradictory statements on the subject. Here is the direct quote from the printed version of Perry's testimony, as it appears in Volume 3, page 369: “I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.” END OF DSL NOTE Further, that there was an attempt to alter the audio on that tape. A clumsy attempt, which resulted in a tape (at that point) where Perry's lip movements are clearly out of sync with the audio track. My personal belief: I believe that it is incorrect procedure—in view of the work and analysis that I have laid out here, in this post—to listen to a tape that (apparently) has been subject to alteration. and which was backed up by a falsified transcript (yes, let me repeat that very important point: that was backed up by a falsified transcript, which said that Perry said that he “rendered it invalid”); and conclude that this is all an innocent error, and assert that Perry obviously meant to say “rendered it invalid”; even though the record (I have quoted) is clear that , on numerous occasions, that is simply not true. On several occasions, as enumerated above, Perry stated that he “left the wound inviolate.” Hope this clarifies. Feedback welcome. DSL 3/2/2018 – 5:55 a.m. PST; edited at 7:10 a.m. Orange County, California

Sandy: OK. I'll give further thought about what you wrote. Thanks for the tip about Walton. Gotta leave. . pulled an all nighter doing all of this. Need some sleep. DSL

OK. I "get it." Thanks. DSL

Micah: I do not understand your comment; i.e., what you mean (or intend to infer) by the phrase "the 'inviolate' skip". As heard by me and Pat Valentino--when we were both viewing Gordon's CBS tape, at his home--and as confirmed by the late Gary Mack, it is unquestionably the case that Perry says he left the wound "inviolate." Subjectively. . yes, I felt there was something peculiar about the audio, because the audio didn't seem to match the lip movements of Dr. Perry. (And, on that score, and as I recall, Pat, and I, and Groden, all took Gordon's tape to a high class audio shop in Philadelphia, and tried to make a copy that we could study, and in which the audio and video were both "slowed down"). In any event, and as matters now stand: the demonstrable cover-up occurs in the area of the transcript published at the back of the Steve White book which, without any doubt, was altered to remove "inviolate" and which substituted the phrase that Perry "rendered it invalid." DSL 2/28/2018 - 9:55 A.M.PDT Orange County, California

Andrei, and David Josephs: There are two separate issues here - - (1) What Perry actually did (surgically, i.e. "medically") and (2) What Perry said that he did. The underlying issue is of considerable importance to me, as the author of Best Evidence, because the important issue is whether the throat wound was altered between the time the body was observed in ER-1 at Parkland Hospital (by the "treating physicians"); and the time the official autopsy on the body commenced (at 8 PM, EST) in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at the National Naval Medical Center ("Bethesda Naval Hospital"), Bethesda, Maryland. Here are the facts, as I know them, and/or understand them: On November 23, 1963, Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin that he made an incision "below" the bullet wound. On that occasion, he did not use the word 'inviolate," (as far as we know); he simply said (i.e., told Jimmy Breslin) that he inserted the tracheotomy tube "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin then used that word--"below"-in the article he wrote for the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch which was published on 11/24/63, and which was then reprinted as "Death in O.R. 1" in the Sat Evening Post of 12/14/1963. On that same weekend (according to Dr. Dave Stewart, who first related this to me in a telephone interview in 1982) Dr. Perry told Stewart --that he left the wound "inviolate." Steward told me this in 1982, by phone; and then repeated all of it in considerable detail i a filmed interview that I conducted in June 1989, with Pat Valentino also being present. (See paragraph below, starting "In June 1989"). In late 1966 (according to notes I made), Perry was interviewed by CBS affiliate KRLD's Eddie Barker; and in that interview, he clearly stated that he "left the wound inviolate". That interview was broadcast in June 1967, in Part 2 of the 4-part CBS program defending the Warren Report. A year (or so) before he died, the late Gary Mack pulled his copy of the tape, at the Sixth Floor Museum, and confirmed (to me, and others, on the Paul Hoch email chain) that that is what Perry said. In the Nashville Banner of November 1967, Dr. Stewart was interviewed and stated that Perry told him that he didn't have to make an incision through the wound, because he was able to use the pre-existing bullet wound as an orifice of entry. (I will defer to whatever is printed in that Nashville Banner news story. As I recall, the word "inviolate" was not used in that story, but my recollection may be incorrect. I don't know for sure). In 1977 (according to notes examined a few hours ago), Groden (then employed by the HSCA) and a Baltimore newspaper reporter visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office and showed him the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, showing the throat wound (with that wide gash, testified to by Humes as being "7 - 8 cm" and exhibiting "widely gaping irregular edges" (per the autopsy report). Perry shook his head from side to side and said ("sadly") words to the effect that he didn't "understand" because he had "left the wound inviolate." Gordon's account of what occurred on that occasion was set forth, by Groden, in my filmed interview with him in June 1989, just a few days after I had had the filmed interview with Dr. Stewart. In June 1989, I (and Pat Valentino) went to Dr. Dave Stewart's home (one or two days prior to interviewing Groden, on camera)and had a multi-hour highly detailed filmed interview with Dr. Dave Stewart. On that occasion, Dr. Stewart related his entire experience with regard to his relationship with Dr. Perry, and what Perry had told him on 11/22 (or very shortly thereafter); also, how the Dallas doctors reacted to getting a call (or calls) from Bethesda on Friday night, 11/22/63, and their strong reaction to learning that there had been confusion, supposedly because of what "they" had done. They reacted strongly to this because, Stewart told me (on camera) that no one had touched the throat wound, in doing the tracheotomy; and during this filmed interview, Dr. Stewart repeatedly quoted Perry and used the word "inviolate". In that same filmed interview, I asked Dr. Stewart: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how certain are you that Perry used the term 'inviolate'?"; his response, quite immediate, was to state, very sharply and emphatically; "15." As to what Perry actually did (as distinguished from "what he said he did" [my quotes]: in Final Charade, I will be publishing an account from Dr. McClelland in which he (McClellan) states that Perry did not have to make an incision, and, by way of explanation, Mcclelland stated the following: that as Perry withdrew the endotracheal tube originally inserted by Dr. Carrico, Perry was then able to enter the trachea by inserting the tracheotomy tube through the pre-existing bullet wound, as soon as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn, and was at a location above that bullet wound. Returning now to the statement made at the outset of this post: let's distinguish between what Perry "did" from what he "said he did." He clearly states--again and again and again--that he did not disturb the pre-existing bullet wound, explaining to Dr. Stewart (who related what Perrytold him to the Nashville Banner in 1967, that he used the pre-existing bullet wound as an orifice of entry, and (the) never had to make an incision. Stewart told me (1989) that Perry (and the others) were clearly distressed that "they" (at the Dallas end of the line) were being blamed for having caused confusion by having altered the wound, maintaining that they hadn't touched it in any way, and left it just as they had found it. My personal opinion: I think going to the dictionary (as if looking for some "wiggle room") is not particularly helpful, because Perry made very clear what his position was. He never touched the wound--that's what he said (to Stewart) and Stewart related all of that to me, first in 1982, by phone, and then in the very detailed (and serious) 1989 filmed interview. Again, i come back to the question that I asked him, on camera, as related above: "How certain are you, on a scale of 1 to 10, that Perry used the word 'inviolate'?"; to which Dr. Stewart responded, with considerable emphasis: "15." No amount of "dictionary research" or research as to "standard [medical] procedures" is going to change the certainty of Dr. Perry (as related to me by Dr. Dave Stewart) that he (Perry) stated that he never changed the shape of the throat wound; i.e., that he left it 'inviolate." Finally, there is the matter of the Steve White book, and the issue that is raised by that book. THE STEVE WHITE BOOK (1968) - -Should We Now Believe the warren Report? White's book contains a small documentary appendix featuring a printed transcript of Part 2 of the 4 -part CBS show. The transcript very explicitly states an important falsehood: that Perry said, in the (Eddie Barker) interview, that by performing the tracheotomy, he cut through the wound and "rendered it invalid." However, the actual (i.e., the supposedly "true") CBS transcript, but that's not the case. The actual CBS transcript was retrieved by JFK researcher Todd Vaughan from the Gerald Ford library, and that document states that Perry said he "left the wound inviolate". (And that, also, is what is stated on the CBS transcript that I obtained directly from CBS files in New York City, back in June 1967, when the four-part program was first broadcast. So. . it would appear that someone (and I suspect it was Barker, but I don't know, for sure) altered the transcript provided to author White so that when he wrote about this issue (his book was published in 1968) he would honestly believe the story --which is completely false--that the confusion at Bethesda was caused by a tracheotomy incision made by Dr. Perry in Dallas. Its very important to understand how serious this particular facet of the throat wound mystery is: by altering that transcript, some third party was engaged in a premeditated deception; and, if this had gone to court, an obstruction of justice. The two transcripts--the official CBS transcript from the Ford Library (or CBS News in NYC) and the printed version appearing at the back of the White book--are completely word-for-word identical, except for that single sentence (!). Finally, and I want to emphasize another point: both the late Gary Mack (and JFK researcher Todd Vaughan) independently confirmed that, without any doubt, Perry stated (in the CBS broadcast interview of June 1967) that, with regard to the throat wound, he stated that he left the wound "inviolate." To recap: this is a multi-faceted mystery, and there are (to my mind) at least five separate facets: FACET #1: What Perry said: He clearly said, according to multiple sources, and to the audio record itself, that he left the wound "inviolate." FACET #2: What Perry did (on 11/22/63): My personal belief: He did what he said he did: Perry left the wound "inviolate." FACET #3: Perry's changed story as to what he said he did: telling Breslin on 11/23 that he made his incision 'below"the pre-existing bullet wound; telling Stewart that he didn't have to alter the wound to effect the tracheotomy. FACET #4: What happened to the body between Dallas and Bethesda (vis a vis the throat wound): Someone altered the throat wound; turning what was a small puncture, a quarter inch in diameter, punctate, etc., into a wide gash, that-- according to the Humes autopsy testimony was "7 - 8 cm" in length, and had "widely gaping irregular edges". FACET #5: The Altered Transcript of the Eddie Barker/Perry Interview: Someone changed the transcript of the CBS interview published at the back of Steve White's 1968 book so that it falsely stated that Perry, by the action he took, "rendered it [the wound] invalid." My personal opinion: One can not find "the answer" to this multi-faceted mystery by looking up in the dictionary the word "inviolate" or looking into medical journals to find out how a tracheotomy is "normally" (i.e., usually) performed. Everything that happened in this particular case violates the norms, and---had there been a Special Prosecutor in this case, and had such a "higher authority" been created and allowed to investigate--the outcome would be (i.e., "would have been") entirely different than the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story that is to e found in the Warren Report; along with the disgraceful behavior of former CIA Director Allen Dulles. Specifically, when Perry testified (falsely) on March 30, 1964, that he made an incision, he was then badgered by Dulles who attempted to blame the public confusion about the throat wound on Perry's supposedly incorrect statements to the press. DSL 2/28/2018 - 9:15 A.M. PST Orange County, California

Michael, Thanks for replying to my posts. I don't think you understand the problem, or you would not be citing Perry's testimony as your "answer." The issue is not what Dr. Perry testified to the Warren Commission in March 1964. . . The issue is Perry's credibility, and that can only be judged by putting that testimony in the context of, first of all, his prior statements; and secondly, his statements made subsequent to his Warren Commission testimony. The issue before us: Did he (or did he not) make an incision through the throat wound? My post(s) have cited four pieces of evidence which establish what Dr. Perry said on four different occasions: a) What Dr.Perry told Jimmy Breslin on November 23, 1963 b ) What Dr. Perry told Dr. Stewart on November 22, 1963 (or shortly thereafter, because the two knew one another); c ) What Dr. Perry (himself) stated when interviewed in 1966/67, and was broadcast nationally in June 1967. d) What Dr. Perry told Robert Groden (and a Baltimore newspaper reporter) when first shown the JFK face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph in 1979. His statements, on these four occasions, can be used to assess his credibility; and, by implication, the truthfulness of his sworn testimony before Chief Justice Warren that he made an incision through the wound. Any freshman law school student, in a class on evidence, could perform this analysis, if that person had the record of Perry's statements. Well, now we do have such a record, and so here is what that record says, and what it tells us. .. : Re (a): Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin that he made the incision for the tracheotomy tube below the bullet wound; not through it. And Breslin published that information in the story he wrote on November 23, 1963, an account that was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 11/24/63, and then reprinted in the Saturday Evening Post in mid-December 1963. Again: no "incision" through any bullet wound because, he told Breslin, he put the tube in "below" the bullet wound. Re (b): Dr. Perry told Stewart that he didn't have to make an incision; he simply was able to push in the tracheotomy tube "through" the pre-existing bullet wound. Dr. Stewart repeated this in a front page story published in Nashville Banner in November 1966 (Date based on recollection); and he described that at considerable length, and in detail, in the filmed interview that I (and Pat Valentino) conducted with him in June/July of 1989. Furthermore, and as will be shown when I publish Final Charade, Dr. McClelland supported that account. He, too, said no incision was necessary: the tracheotomy tube was simply "pushed through" the pre-existing bullet hole. Re (c ): Dr. Perry told the CBS Interviewer that he left the wound "inviolate" --as is documented on the videotape of the interview, as broadcast in June 1967 Again: These are Dr. Perry's own words, as recorded on videotape, when interviewed in 1966 or 1967, and broadcast nationally in June 1967. He says that he "left the wound inviolate." (This statement was verified by the late Gary Mack. To repeat: Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"). Re (d) : Upon seeing --for the first time--the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph at his New York City office in 1979, which shows a large horizontal gash at the front of JFK's throat, Dr. Perry shook his head sadly from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate." So. . : Perry said he left the wound "inviolate" not only in a June 1967 nationally broadcast interview, but then again, in person, to Groden accompanied by a reporter for a Baltimore newspaper in 1979. What I have enumerated above are four data points that are essential to understanding the medical evidence in this case; and, incidentally, in assessing the credibility of Dr. Perry. If Perry's statements are correct, he never enlarged the wound. If Perry's statements are correct, then someone surely did "enlarge" the wound, because, as is shown by the face-up autopsy photograph that I published, for the first time, in the (Oct) 1988 Edition of Best Evidence, (and as discussed in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, devoted to the change in size of the tracheotomy incision) the wound (at Bethesda) was clearly much larger than the wound as described in Dallas. You respond to this by saying "So this is a ridiculous premise that you think Perry did not make this incision." Michael Walton: Its not what I "think"; its what Perry said, on four separate occasions: twice before he testified; and then on two separate occasions afterwards, the second of which, in 1979, when he saw the Bethesda "stare-of-death" photograph for the first time. The issue is critical because it goes to the question of whether someone altered the body --i.e., the wounds--prior to autopsy. ABOUT THE MANNER OF YOUR RESPONSE: The general tenor of your response--and the "wise guy" attitude you bring to bear on this question--immediately raises the question: What experience do you have in assessing evidence? Are you a serious analyst? Or a kibitzer shouting wisecracks from the peanut gallery? You do not post any biographical information, and the Forum record classifies you as a "super member" and states that you have made 1394 posts in the course of about two years. Do the math: that's almost two posts per day for about two years. You're obviously not a lawyer or a trained historian, but I would like to know what kind of background you bring to this issue, to respond as you do. How do you respond to the evidence, Michael Walton? And what is the basis for your assertions that this is a "ridiculous premise"? And by the way, try paying attention to vocabulary: I don't have a "premise"; what I do have are inferences I have made and tentative conclusions I have drawn from this rather complex historical record. Looking forward to your response. Not some facile statements about whether or not you do (or don't) believe in conspiracy. That's not the issue. How about some information about your educational background and training? DSL 2/27/2018 - 6:30 p.m. PST Orange County, California

There's additional background one needs to know to respond to your question. Let me attempt, somewhat hurriedly, to provide it. a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton. . .: Are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below --I stress "below"--the bullet wound?" She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx,, from memory) December 10th 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One" , by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound. Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come. (b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post;s editorial deadline for that midi-December issue) or earlier? I don't have to emphasize the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence. But the exact date of interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963 Saturday Evening Post article. Now. . "flash forward" several years. . . (c ) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise-- that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes). So Breslin's article in the mid- December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963. (d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound. But. . there is still more. . (e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find: From Dr. Carrico 11/22/63 report: "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected. . . the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 292 [17 WCH 7]). (f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.). (g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quit a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Are you following me?. . . OK. . now, let's move on. . (h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound? In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound? (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked, by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess. . although i'm not sure on this last point). (i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wounds and (b) if he had made no incision at all. Which brings me to the next point. . . (j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview --date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory). At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book,--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until the visit to Gordon's home in June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis. And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred. (k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart. He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate." I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo. Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate." All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi--page memo. (l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino. More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move. There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip. As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves. Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember. . what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not) Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart. Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor. "David, this man is telling you the truth! This is important!" And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid." Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid. He did not say "inviolate". Now how do you know that? was Pat's response. And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. Its right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid." He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate." Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's back. But there the matter rested, for years. Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not. But. . (m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that --around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews, that we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did. Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey. One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Gordon later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior. Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But. . putting all that aside, and that may hold the key to the missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate." Again: "inviolate" . . .crystal clear, on the tape. (n) Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989) was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story - - A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film. Its an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence. Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound. (O) So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications. Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that: (1) it was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,. . (2) That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and. . (3) That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should we Now Believe the Warren Report"-1968) was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note. . (4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--its right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration. Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows. Now back to your original question, which was, QUOTE: Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? UNQUOTE My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision. He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade). And then the following events occurred: (a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision 'below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound). (b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9); (c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc. On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369) If i'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner, but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of 'higher authority." That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade. In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988. Addressing your question number 2: Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online RESPONSE: None of what i have written here (in this post) is in Best Evidence. Remember: B.E. was published in january 1981. As noted in these posts, all of these events (with one exception) commenced around 1982. The exception: I was probably aware of the original Tennessee newspaper story when I wrote B.E. (1976-80) but simply didn't know what to make of it. Because Dr. Stewart was not actually in ER-1 (and because he was never interviewed by the WC), I never attempted to contact him. His true importance didn't emerge until the letter I received (circa 1982, as I recall) from Nurse Dobson, calling my attention to what Breslin had written in the (mid-December 1963) Saturday Evening Post. Yes, it would be useful to obtain the original Tennessee newspaper story. Certainly, it is in my original "JFK Medical Files," but those are now located, with over 40 filing cabinets, in a storage area, for which I pay a pricey bill each month. I'm seriously considering setting up a crowd-funding project to get all this material properly indexed (and scanned, where appropriate). Meanwhile. . a suggestion: use Interlibrary Loan, at a major library; or. . the digital capabilities of one of those major newspaper sites. If you (or anyone) retrieves the story, please email me at dsl74@Cornell.edu., because I would be interested in a digital copy of that story. One other matter (and in the spirit of a Post Script): Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, its my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD. Addressing question #3: i don't understand what "blue ray" films you are referring to. Please clarify. Re your question #4: QUOTE: 4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen. UNQUOTE RESPONSE: I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread. The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue. And: if they knew. . .what were they told? How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction? Again. . what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them? Stay tuned. DSL 2/27/2018 - 3 P.M. Orange County, California

Micah: I'm restricting this post to the question you have asked, and am deliberately numbering the paragraphs which follow to facilitate study and commentary on what I have to say: 1. At some point during the life of the HSCA (as I recall), Robert Groden, along with a Baltimore reporter (name I don't recall just now) took the autopsy photos and showed them to Dr. Perry, who (at that time) was practicing medicine in New York City. Perry looked at the "stare of death" photo, shook his head from side to side, and said words to the effect that that's not the way he left the wound. Specifically, he said to Groden (as related to me and Pat Valentino in a June/July filmed interview at Groden's home in New Jersey): "I left the wound inviolate." 2 Groden went on to say that the quote stood out (for him) because, although he knew what the word ("inviolate") meant, he had never heard it used in conversation before. 3. Everything I have described above was recorded on film, when Pat Valentino and I visited with Groden at his home in (as I recall) Hopelawn, New Jersey, in June (or July) 1989. NOW COMES "Inviolate" - - Part 2 4A. While at Groden's home, he took out his super-clear copy (obtained from some source, which he would not reveal) of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry (probably in late 1966) excerpts of which were aired in the famous (or "infamous") June 1967 CBS Special (narrated by Walter Cronkite) which defended the Warren Report. 4B: Transcripts of that show (as I recall) were published in a book by Steve White, then affiliated with CBS News, "Should we Now Believe the Warren Report?" --published by Macmillan in 1968. See, for example, the listing at Amazon, where a used copy can be purchased for $4.50. Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/Should-Now-Believe-Warren-Report/dp/B000FMILUY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519703878&sr=1-1&keywords="Should+we+now+believe+the+Warren+Report%3F" 4C: Here's why White's book was (and still is) important: it contained what purported to be very official transcripts from the CBS broadcasts. The transcript read (from memory) that Perry explained the confusion (about whether the throat wound was entry or exit) by stating that his trach incision through the bullet wound had "rendered it invalid." (These words are the key: "rendered it invalid".) 4D: At Robert Groden's home, he put a video copy into a playback machine, and we watched. Pat V and I were watching, and expected the video to confirm what I knew (or believed I knew) from the White transcript. But instead, as the video played, and came to that point, Perry didn't say that at all. Instead, he said (and this was on the audio track): that he left the wound inviolate. 4E: Pat and I were both astounded, and rose up off our chairs, loudly exclaiming: "What?!!!". Groden wanted to know what the heck we were so excited about, and we asked him to back up the tape, and play it again, and again, and again. . . there was no doubt about it: Perry said, on the tape, that he left the wound "inviolate"! However. . (see next point) 5. In the Steve White book (again, "as I recall") it read: "I rendered the wound invalid". . whereas in official CBS transcripts I had ordered, years before, from CBS in New York, those transcripts said something different. They transcript actually used the word "inviolate"., 6. Groden, meanwhile, wanted to know what the heck was going on, and why we were both so excited. We promised to tell him, but first wanted to interview him, on camera, before we "closed the loop" and explained our reaction. We wanted a faithful filmed record of his understanding of the matter, not influenced by any theory or hypothesis that we had. 7. So now, we set up the camera, and the lights, and the audio, etc., and had a multi-hour filmed interview with Robert Groden, in which Groden explained, in detail, his visit to Dr. Perry in New York City, and what had happened when he was shown the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo: how Perry shook his head from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate." 8. After we had this point thoroughly nailed down, and discussed every which way, we then honored our agreement, and proceeded to tell Groden (on camera) just what it was we were so excited about. 9. As I have described (above), all of this is on film. 10. I think it was within two days of that filmed shoot, that we visited with Dr. Dave Stewart, and had an important multi-hour interview with him. That interview was very important because, although Steward was not in ER-1, he had a good relationship with Perry, and so could comment on what Perry's state of mind was, and (perhaps, because I don't have a transcript in front of me just now) exactly what Perry said. But see point 11. 11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound). 11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!). 11C: When this matter was discussed in detail on a special private email thread run by JFK researcher Paul Hoch, the late Gary Mack contributed to the discussion. Mack wrote that he had checked the relevant CBS tapes and that yes, Dr. Perry stated that he had left the wound “inviolate.” As I recall, JFK researcher Todd Vaughan agreed. 12. Of course, this adds a whole other dimension to the controversy: if Perry didn't have to make an incision, no wonder he was shocked when he saw the stare-of-death photo, with its wide gash; but, more importantly, Perry twice testified under oath (once in his WC deposition, in Dallas, and then when he went before the Commission in Washington) that he had made a horizontal incision in the throat when he performed the tracheotomy. (And remember: when I called Perry on 10/27, and inquired about the incision length, he initially me it was "2-3 cm" (as I reported in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. If Perry didn't have to make an incision, then he perjured himself when he testified otherwise. 13. The Warren Commission (and the Secret Service and/or the FBI) was derelict in not finding this 1966 (or 1967) front page story in the Tennessee newspaper that quoted Stewart as stating that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision. That's something that should have been unearthed in the FBI investigation. (For those who may be unaware: the FBI read all the major newspapers, and stories like that were duly noted, and filed, with a routing slip that often indicated their distribution to FBI Director Hoover and all the other Assistant Directors). 14. I have never checked the original FBI records to see whether it was clipped and filed. (It ought to have been, but I can't say that it was, or wasn't). FURTHER COMMENT: To those who wonder why Final Charade has taken so long to complete, the above story--about something that seems "so simple" is a good example. The issue at first may appear to be nothing but the pursuit of a simple, and perhaps inconsequential "factoid," but in fact its dead serious. At issue is not just whether the throat wound was altered (considerably enlarged, in a brutal fashion, so that, as the Bethesda autopsy states, it had "widely gaping irregular edges"); but, in addition, it has serious implications as to whether Dr. Malcolm Perry committed perjury when he testified that he made an incision in order to perform the tracheotomy. In other words, we "know" a trach tube was inserted into that opening at the front of President Kennedy's neck - -the question is, was it necessary to make an incision (as Perry testified) or was it possible that he simply was able to insert the tube through the pre-existing bullet hole which, fortuitously, was situated at just the right spot to insert a trach tube and reach the windpipe (the trachea)? Finally, if Perry said "I left the wound inviolate," and if that is what appears in the official CBS transcripts of the June 1967 TV broadcast, then how is one to explain the CBS transcript that was published in Stephen White's book (in an Appendix at the back) and which has Perry saying "I rendered the wound invalid"? Finally, and this is purely my personal opinion: as Pat Valentino and I watched Groden's excellent copy of the Perry interview (as broadcast in June 1967),. it seemed clear to me (and I think Pat V. would agree) that someone had monkeyed with the audio, in an attempt to clumsily conceal Perry's articulation of the word "inviolate" and (possibly) create enough confusion so that his statement could be heard as "I rendered it invalid." This post (that I have written here) is much more detailed than anything I expected to write, in answering Micah Mileto's question, and my intention is to save it, for use in drafting a few pages in Final Charade. But this issue offers a good example of why research in the JFK case has often been compared to dealing with a bunch of "rabbit holes." For those who take the medical evidence seriously, this particular "rabbit hole" is obviously quite important; and if (for any reason) Perry deliberately lied (i.e., was "prevailed upon" not to tell the truth, because I don't think he would do that of his own volition) and if the transcript in White's book represented deliberate misinformation (or "disinformation") then all of this constitutes an important game changer. Feedback welcome. DSL 2/26/2018 - 8:35 PST Orange County, California

Sandy, Thanks for your post. I don't have much more time to spend on this guy, and his commentary, which I'm starting to realize is basically vapid. But let me just point out a few things, for those reading this thread, and who genuinely want to know what happened, or at least, would like some hint of what I belive. Based on interviews (not yet published, in full), here are some conclusions I have reached: 1. The original alteration of JFK's body (bullet retrieval, wound alteration, etc) was planned to take place in Dallas, and within 30 minutes of the shooting. 2. It did not happen because, among other unexpected events, Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot. (You can take this statement to the bank--the shooting of Governor Connally was completely unexpected, and was not in anyone's scenario. It completely upset a reasonably well-designed apple cart.) 3. As a consequence of an out-of-control situation that developed, i.e., as a result of unexpected events (such as the shooting of JC), President Kennedy's body left Parkland Hospital without an autopsy, and basically in the same condition as it was immediately after the shooting. 4. Upon reaching AF-1 (25 minutes before the Dallas coffin's arrival), Lyndon Johnson got on the phone, and reached "higher authority"--which, in this case, was Secretary of Defense McNamara. (Remember: the rest of the Kennedy cabinet was out over the Pacific, with Sec State Rusk). 5. As a result of that phone call, and others, arrangements were made to arrange what I will politely call a "political autopsy." As in: "This is above your pay grade, doctor. . Do as you're told. . . We're trying to prevent a nuclear war" etc. All of that is (i.e., was) baloney, but that is what I believe happened. Humes was not Simon Pure; and he did not "alter the body". But he did "follow orders" in what turned out to be an extraordinary situation. 6. At about 2:15 p.m. CST, the body was offloaded from Air Force One at Love Field, on the starboard side, via the rear starboard half-door, while Jacqueline Kennedy and all the Kennedy aides were down on the tarmac, on the port side, and prior to Jacqueline Kennedy boarding the aircraft. 7. The result generated a blood trail--requiring an extensive plane cleaning at Andrews-- that will be addressed in Final Charade. 8. By phone, and possibly via McNamara, Robert Kennedy was provided with a "limited hangout" which "explained" what had to be done to eliminate the (supposed) "threat of war"--again, this was LBJ, bull-xxxxting his way into the presidency. I don't believe that RFK believed what he was being told, but McNamara did. And that paved the way for the subsequent high level cover-up. 9. Regarding the events at Bethesda. . . focus on Chapter 16 of B.E., and realize that, if the body was not in the coffin when AF-1 took off from Dallas, then the "ambulance chase" at Bethesda was not the time when the body was first "intercepted"; rather, it was quite the opposite; it was the time when the body, which had been already been intercepted (i.e., already covertly diverted) hours earlier, and prior to take-off, was being "returned" to the coffin in which it began its journey, so that the US Army multi-service casket team would witness a coffin opening at the Bethesda morgue, a coffin opening that contained the body. As to the Navy personnel, they were hushed up with the gag order. (See Chapter 27, B.E). 10. Note: The ambulance chase occurred starting at about 7:12 p.m.; the official coffin opening occurred at 8 p.m. The real question is what happened between 6:35 p.m., when the body first arrived in the morgue, in the shipping casket, and 7:17 pm, when the FBI arrived. I now know considerably more about this crucial period than I did when I wrote B.E... and it will all be spelled out in Final Charade. (Read Chapter 28 to get up to speed as to what I knew back in 1980). 11. The body did not go to Walter Reed. Those radio transmissions are real, part of a plan to return the body to the coffin, which didn't work. How do I know ? 12. I had a two-hour meeting , in person and tape recorded, on July 15, 1980, with Major General Chester Clifton at his Washington DC office. I learned a lot from that interview. 13. Also note: remember Hubert Clark--whose account (based on my telephone interview) was published in Chapter 16? Well, about ten years after B.E. was published, someone sat down with Clark and did an excellent video interview, and I now have that interview, in full living color, on a DVD. Its really quite good, and I may be using it either in Final Charade, or in the e-book version of B.E. All I can say is: the quest to find the truth goes on, and this is a complex case. It requires study and careful analysis. Wisecracks (and insults) won't do. Stay tuned. . . DSL 12/16/17 - 7:15 a.m. PST

What I like best--and nominate for the most ludicrous misrepresentation of all, and a testament to fundamental ignorance--is that there were people with "scalpels at the ready prepared to carve up the body." Pardon me, but this wouldn't even pass for text in a cheap novel. DSL

Michael Walton: Your post really comes off as something generated by an uninformed smart alek who apparently thinks he knows much more than he obviously does. 1. The sequence of arrivals at Bethesda--that the body arrived a good 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin, and arrived in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket, absolutely establishes that the body was not in the coffin when Air Force One took off from Dallas. Instead of sitting on your duff, and making grandiose pronouncements, go read (or re-read) Chapter 25 of B.E. Also be informed that there's a second witness, besides the late Dennis David, to the sequence of arrivals. (See Point #2) 2. The second witness is Donald Rebentisch, a U.S. Navy person who came forward within a day or two of the original release of Best Evidence. I wrote up the details about who he was in the 1982 paperback edition of B.E. (the second of its four publishers) and made sure that that 1982 epilogue was published then, and in all remaining editions. Rebentisch was part of the group that Dennis David had assembled to assist in the offloading of the shipping casket, from the black hearse which arrived at the back, around 6:35 p.m. The Fifth Estate--the Canadian version of 60 Minutes--found him highly credible, and the producer (Brian McKenna) and I flew to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and interviewed Rebentisch for the CBC broadcast, titled "The Empty Casket", one of the highest rated shows ever broadcast at CBC. There will be an e-book edition of B.E., and one of the topics I intend to include is Rebentisch, and the corroboration he affords for the account of Dennis David. 3. Neither I, nor Brian McKenna, collected "snatches of statements". . . we conducted a fully professional filmed interviews. So did Stanhope Gould, who was the producer for Walter Cronkite at CBS News, and handled the Watergate coverage. He and Sylvia Chase reviewed the B.E. video, and the key witnesses, filming them again for a 1988 broadcast on KRON-TV, and its sister station in St. Louis. Stanhope told the San Francisco media that "David Lifton has found and developed courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda" (quotes, from memory). Rest assured, Michael Walton, that Brian McKenna and Stanhope Gould have a level of professionalism that you can only achieve--or should I say "hope to achieve"-- in your dreams. 4. The puzzle of just when the body was removed from the coffin, which the mathematics of the arrival times shows must have occurred, and what rationale was given to the Secret Service agents involved, is a legitimate subject for historical inquiry. But to engage in such an inquiry, you have to get your facts straight, and not approach the situation as simply a juvenile smart aleck who wants to engage in insults. To begin with, and contrary to your glib assertions, Jacqueline Kennedy was not with the coffin "during the entire time from Dallas until you see her get off the plane." Take another look, Michael Walton, and you will see that, in your haste to throw around insults, there is another crucial period which you have neglected. In addition. . 5. No one said the body was at "the back of Air Force One, [and then] put in a helicopter. . " Certainly, I never did. Of course, you're free to make up your own "facts"--if that's what you prefer. 6. There's been quite a number of developments in this area, since Best Evidence was first published (in January 1981) and long before you joined the London Forum (about two years ago), posting about 1300 posts in the space of two years. So I guess you like to hang out at your computer, and impress people that you know a lot. Well, guess again. Suggestion: Study the record before running your mouth. 7. Regarding your characterization that a "helicopter. . flew away with it (the body) so other military/intelligence/medico personnel could look at it and cover up all manner of conspiracy" is completely sophomoric, and the give-away that you really don't understand what the heck you are talking about. You certainly have no accurate conception of what was going on aboard Air Force One from the time that Lyndon Johnson boarded the plane at about 1:40 p.m. CST, to the time that the hearse arrived at planeside from Parkland Hospital with the bronze coffin which, undoubtedly, contained President Kennedy's body--at that time. Also, there's another small fact you seem to have neglected, in your haste to appear so sophisticated and well informed. . . 8. There are about six hours of tapes of AF-1 communications that are currently missing. Do you think they were discussing White House grocery lists? 9. No one "[took] a statement [from] here and there [to] weave a story of body snatching. . " If that's your concept of how a legal investigation works, or what happened in this case, or how I pursued my own investigation, you've got a lot to learn. And then to say that my analysis "completely muddles the conspiracy record and, at worst, is dishonest to the Kennedy case. . " Really, one has to wonder who appointed you to be the judge of such things, not to mention what you studied during the years of your formal education. . basket weaving? 10. I strongly suggest that you take a small sabbatical, and post less, and read more. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not include me in the same sentence as Armstrong. I think his book has, here and there, some interesting data, and there was a period (some 23 years ago) when I communicated with him by fax and phone, and engaged him in debate, and I understand how much effort he has put into this case (probably much more than you have, I might add); but no, I don't subscribe to his major interpretation(s) or any of his major hypotheses. DSL 12/16/2017 - 6:35 a.m. PST South Orange County, California

Oh, great. A smart alek who doesn't know what he's talking about. Just what is needed on this forum. Is this the best you can do at age 48? DSL

Hi Sandy: Let me supply a two pieces of information, and add some observation:s (Item #3): Item: When I interviewed the Dallas doctors--and my first round of interviews was in 1966/67, and were by phone--the doctor who spent the most time with me on the phone was Dr. Peters. He said that the head wound--what has been referred to as the "blowup"--was the size of "a hen's egg" (i.e., an ordinary store bought egg) and that would be reasonably consistent with Carrico's profferred measurement of 5 x 7 centimeters. As to location, he said it was down on the right side of the skull, towards the bottom, and that the defect was sufficiently low that he believed he could see the occipital lobes of the brain resting against the foramen magnum (the hole at the bottom of the skull, in the occipital bone, through which the spinal cord enters the brain etc.) In short, his description was rather consistent with the defect shown in the "McClelland diagram," as published in Six Seconds, which had not yet been published. ITEM #2: Back in 1965/66, when I was intensely interested in collecting negatives and prints of the Moorman photo, I was in San Francisco, either at a wire service office, or at a newspaper (and I don't remember which) and they had a negative of the Moorman photo which was the original neg generated on their wire service machine back on 11/22/63. "Here, you want this? You can have it" was their attitude; and yes, I did want it. That Moorman negative, plus the half-tone (of Moorman) that I describe in Chapter 1 of B.E., provided an good image of what (at first) appeared to be a "shoulder pad" , on Kennedy's right shoulder. Closer inspection persuaded me that that was no "shoulder pad"; rather, it was a piece of President Kennedy's scalp (probably with bone attached on the underside) as it fell from the right rear of his head, and into the back seat of the car. So the shot that caused this "right rear blowout" must have impacted within a split second of Moorman's camera shutter being open, and taking that photo, so it caught the image of a piece of JFK's head, as it was detached from the skull, and falling into the back seat. Which brings me to the next point. ITEM #3: What was the origin of that shot, and where did it come from? First of all, I'm a strong partisan of the idea that Kennedy was very likely struck in the left temple, as Dr. McClelland noted in his original handwritten report. But more important, and even if that were true, what were the details? Exactly how did it impact. what was the origin, and why did it create the exit wound at the right rear? I'm afraid that my answer will be most unsatisfying to many, but I believe that until and unless the riddle of the Zapruder film is (finally) resolved, we won't know, for sure. In other words, I believe the film was altered, that frames are missing, and that we simply cannot trust a frame like, say, 312, and conclude: well, this is the true geometry at that moment in time, so how can we explain that right rear exit?--especially if, for corroboration, I am correct about what I believe to be on the Moorman negatives that I obtained back in 19655/66. Finally. . ITEM #4: I am not going to debate film alteration in this post (see my essay Pig on a Leash, for my views) except to say that I went to Dallas in November 1971, specifically for the purpose of interviewing the "car stop" witnesses. I interviewed 5 of them, and I have great confidence in what they told me. The memory I have--and this is all on audio tape (made on a SONY TC-800, the same recorder that Nixon used for his "White House tapes") - is that of -Bill and Gayle Newman. I was at their home, and we went over this very carefully. It was their reality, without any question, that the President's car stopped (momentarily) right in front of them. When I told Bill Newman that the Z film which was at the National Archives (and had had not yet been shown publicly--remember, this was 1971) showed no such stop, he said: "I don't are what the film shows. It stopped. . right in front of us." (quotes, from memory. and he was quite emphatic on that point). Now I know that there are many technical arguments that can be made, but I'm not interested in debating the point, here in this post. I believe that someday this matter may be resolved, quite definitively, by the production of unaltered film footage. Meanwhile, I'm just taking this opportunity to point out what (to me) seems obvious: the reason the entry point for the bullet which caused the right rear blowout is so puzzling, is because the film record has been altered. Anyway, Sandy, in view of your technical background--not all that dissimilar to my own--I can understand why you are puzzled about the entry point. Because I have been, too. DSL 12/16/2017 --5:30 a.m. Orange County, Calif.

Jim DiEugenio: Re "impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. " #1: The photograph I believe you are referring to, where someone is pointing to their "own head", is the picture of Assistant Press Secretary pointing to his own head, when answering a question from the press. If there is another photo one showing a "Parkland doctor. . as he pointed to his own head," please produce that image. #2: What is "post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have (sic). . (you mean "has", do you not). . become so clear over the years." Are you saying that you believe that Commander Humes told the truth, in his autopsy report and testimony, and there is no disagreement between the Parkland data and what Humes described? And that any alteration took place only to the autopsy photographs, but not to the body? Where does this idea come from. . from Gary Aguilar and Milicent Cranor? Having interviewed the Dallas doctors both by telephone (going back to 1966, and extending out to 1982) and then on camera (1989, and 1990), I can assure you that they reacted quite negatively when shown either (a) the Bethesda data, as set forth in the autopsy report and autopsy testimony; and (b) the autopsy photographs, which were displayed by me and Pat Valentio to these doctors -and nurses--in the period December 1982 through January 1983. You'd better do your homework, DiEugenio, if you are going to step into the debate as to when the medical data was altered. For example: are you not aware that when the body was first unveiled for Dr. Ebersole, at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy, that the throat wound was sutured? That suturing (of the throat area) occurred before the autopsy even began (or are you unaware of that?). If so, then I suggest you read Chapter 23 of Best Evidence, where this is all spelled out in detail. I have no doubt that the X-rays (and photos) do not represent the situation as it was reported in the Bethesda autopsy protocol, but neither is it congruent with the situation that was reported in Dallas, by the Parkland doctors and nurses. In fact, and as I laid it out in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, there are three distinctly different views of the President's body, which I referred to as three different "lenses": (1) The Dallas medical records; (2) The Bethesda protocol; (3) The autopsy photos and X-rays. (1) Does not agree with (2); and (2) does not agree with (3). If you are trying to promote the idea that the only changes were "post Bethesda" changes--i.e., bertween the autopsy report, and the autopsy photos and X-rays and not between the Dallas observations and the Bethesda report, then you have an incomplete understanding of the record. DSL

Friday, 12/1/2017 - 5:p.m. PST Late yesterday afternoon, I read the news that Robert Oswald—Lee Oswald’s older brother—had died. And I wrote something that I sent to the entire Paul Hoch group (of about 50 JFK researchers, many of them lone nutters, plus a sprinkling of reporters). Below is a copy of that email. DSL Begin forwarded message: Subject: Death of Robert Oswald From: "David S. Lifton" (DSL74@Cornell.edu) Date: December 1, 2017 at 4:12:17 PM PST Friday, 12/1/2017 - 3:35 p.m. PST Some thirty years ago, veteran JFK researcher Wallace Milam, after watching a video clip of Robert Oswald, said to me,”You don’t want a brother like Robert Oswald.” Wallace was not just an expert in the area of the medical evidence; he was an expert in all manner of details dealing with this case. What he said about Robert Oswald was succinct, and to the point; and I couldn’t agree more. In Final Charade, I will set forth the facts—as I know them (and partly based on conversations I had with Robert Oswald, plus correspondence with the man) on the subject of his brother’s guilt. Lee Oswald was a highly intelligent (and linguistically gifted) individual, an idealist with a serious interest in world affairs, and with a serious interest in sociology, an auto-didact who, by the summer of 1963, was reading at the rate of approximately 150 books a year. Lee Oswald was light years more advanced (i.e., more “evolved”, psychologically) than his older brother, and the roots of the envy (and hatred?) that resulted come right out of the Story of Joseph that can found in Genesis. ( "When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him. Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more.”) Robert Oswald was terribly envious of Lee and in fact had a crush on his wife. As Marina told me back in the early 1980s (and quoting what he told her)," I fell in love with you the first time I saw you.” Marina did not feel the same way about him—at all—and the result was that he cruelly cut off his relationship not only with Marina, but with her two daughters, as well. Unlike Robert Kennedy, who took seriously his responsibility to his fallen brother’s children, neither of Oswald’s daughters had an “Uncle Robert.” He just wasn’t there. Robert Oswald had serious exculpatory information that he could have shared with the authorities about Lee, but he chose not to do so. He cynically went along with the official story that Lee was Kennedy’s assassin, when he knew better, and so we are treated, on annual assassination anniversaries, to film footage of Robert, re-broadcast from the 1993 FRONTLINE documentary stating, in effect, that he is “oh so sorry, but. . “ he has reluctantly concluded that Lee was a murderer. And telling the rest of the country (and the world) that they should just grow up and “get over it." All of that is nonsense. Robert knew better, and in Final Charade, i will provide details. So. . . : RIP Robert Oswald. You could have told the truth about your brother, Lee Oswald, the truth as you knew it, even if you didn’t know all of it. Instead, you took the easy way out; and went along with the big lie. You became an enabler of falsified history. And that will be your true legacy. DSL 12/1/07 South Orange County, California ADDENDUM - 12/4/2017 - 12:40 a.m. PST As far as I can see, and somewhat to my surprise Robert Oswald's death was completely ignored by the New York Times. The editors there apparently decided that his passing was not newsworthy enough to merit an obituary.

Mathias: Thanks very much. No, I did not know about this. I'm surprised that Gaeton would have this in his book, published years ago, and that this passage did not receive significant followup questioning and commentary, after his book was published. It would appear that this is exactly the sort of thing that I conceived of back in the early to mid 1970s, and discussed with CBS producer Harry Moses. But let me back up a bit. In the passage you quoted, who is the "former Deputy Chief" and when did this revelation occur? In other words: when did he "remember" this, and when --and in what format--was it provided to the HSCA? In a letter? A memo? A deposition? If you know more, I'd sure like to know. Thanks. DSL 11/17/2017 - 6:40 p.m. PST

Paul: Thanks for your post. I have told a number of people that one of those who post on the LEF has a prominent position in a symphony orchestra. I think a more detailed picture will emerge in my future writing, but here's the best I can do for now: (1) The alteration of the body (as a means--that is, "the" means-- of falsifying the autopsy) was an integral part of the crime. However, although elegant in conception (and I can't be more specific than that, at this time), it was bungled in execution. The result: there ended up being two conflicting medico-legal records of the President's body--one coming from the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital (in lay language, the "Parkland observations"); the other coming from the autopsy report (or, more generally speaking, the entire Bethesda autopsy protocol). (2) As conceived, it was not just a "cover-up"; but rather, if executed as originally planned, I prefer to think of it as "camouflage"--that is, a series of acts which amounted to a strategic deception, which, if successfully executed (that is, according to the original plan) would have prevented history from ever knowing what had occurred. (I'm sorry that , at this juncture, I have to be somewhat cryptic and vague). My beliefs will be spelled out quite explicitly, and with considerable clarity, in Final Charade. (3) So now, back to your question: the persons involved in what you call "the coverup" (and what I would call the deception operation) were an integral part of the plot to murder the President, even though, by the very nature of the deception operation (whose objective was a fraudulent autopsy) their contribution would, of course, have to occur after the shooting. Another way of stating this: this was a "plot with a built-in coverup." (4) If we were prosecutors, and all the relevant parties were alive, we would make no distinction between Speedy Gonzales and his clique of assassins who murdered the President, and Persons A, B, and C who were involved in a deception operation that would result in a false autopsy. From the standpoint of a prosecutor--i.e., "legally"--they were all part of the (same) plot, and could all be tried for murder. (5) "How were the decision to alter the body made, and by whom?" The short answer: this was an integral part of the planning of the crime. . . not a "decision. . . made" later. You'll read all about that in Final Charade, including certain "communication evidence" that resulted when the original plan went awry as a result of the unexpected shooting of Gov. Connally. (Sorry, but I can't be more specific than that, at this time). Hope this helps. Since you're a musician, and musicians tend to be very smart, and I studied lots of math, and tend to be analytical, I think you are going to find my analysis very, er, interesting. DSL 11/15/2016 - 4:25 a.m. PST

David, Please send me your email. I believe that the map that you published ("part 2, the Trip Down") is seriously incorrect, and I'd like to correspond with you about it. Please use: dsl74@Cornell.edu Thanks. DSL

Thanks for the compliments. Some people—and DiEugenio is a classic example—apparently forget that in evaluating a witness’ statement, it is vital to know when the statement was made. This is true whether investigating a murder, LHO in Mexico City, or anything else (e.g., something relatively as simple as an automobile accident). The Concept of “earliest recorded recollection”. . . being the more reliable evidence If you have an accident on Friday afternoon, and tell the investigating officer one thing, but then on Monday, say something different, it is the earlier account which will be believed, and you have much “explaining” to do, for the latter statement to have credibility. When the time scale is not three days, but a week, or a month, or a years, the situation borders on the absurd. As you have pointed out in this case (that of Duran), there was not just “pressure” but physical beatings. The Soviet Intelligence Officers Who Met With Oswald on Saturday, 9/28 And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met. (This is all described in Passport to Assassination, by Nechiporenko). Back around 1993, John Newman and I met with one or two of these gentlemen, at the ASK conference, and I don’t believe there was any question about their credibility. Completely aside from whether the photo record was falsified—and obviously, something serious took place in that area—these three are witnesses to the fact that Oswald was definitely in Mexico City. Its amazing to me that DiEugenio has the gall to bring up his own visit to HSCA staffer Eddie Lopez at his Rochester residence, some fifteen years later, as evidence of anything. Fall 1978 – My Own Conversation(s) With Lopez (and Purdy) On that subject (and in the spirit of “FWIW”), I spoke to Ed Lopez multiple times back in the fall of 1978, when he was on the staff of the HSCA. I spoke to him for over 2-1/2 hours , as I reported in Best Evidence. (Chapter 24; p.562, Hardcover edition, or Carroll & Graf). A very nice guy, to be sure, but neither he nor Blakey nor Andy Purdy (or others), were taking autopsy falsification seriously. And autopsy falsification is at the heart of the issue of whether Oswald was a shooter, or just a patsy, as he claimed. As I reported in B.E., after I spent considerable time and effort explaining the evidence (remember: this almost three years before publication) and after Lopez had spoken at length with Purdy, he (Lopez), projecting considerable good humor (and certainly not spoken with any malice), relayed to me how Purdy had reacted: “Now that’s what I call a conspiracy!” he had exclaimed. (Same B.E. cite as before). But back to DiEugenio: DiEugenio on Black Ops (precise date [and number of Black Ops show] to be added) Pat Valentino and I have had highly problematic experiences with DiEugenio, because of the superficial way he deals with evidence. Going back, now, to multiple appearances DiEug made on Black Ops Radio, he proudly announced that "I refuse to (or "will not") debate Lifton, or Valentino, about his book.” Pat (who accompanied me on many of my 1989 filmed interviews of the Dallas doctors and nurses) prepared audio excerpts (using the Best Evidence Research Video, now available on line) to demonstrate to the radio audience that –according to Paul O’Connor (and Dennis David)—the body arrived in a shipping casket, and not the expensive bronze "Dallas casket". So that the body did not arrive in the same casket as it left Dallas. Replied DiEugenio (and this is approximate): “Well, sometime on the ride in the naval ambulance, from Air Force One to Bethesda, there may have been a stop.” “May have been a stop?” What was that for, asked Pat. . “For coffee, perhaps?” DiEugenio and “Reclaiming Parkland” (vs the Liebeler Memorandum of November 1966) Very recently, and for the first time, I obtained a copy of DiEugenio’s “Reclaiming Parkland,” published in 2013, which is supposedly focused on the medical evidence. In The Modern Researcher, by Barzun and Graf (a classic about the raft of research and writing), the authors stress the obligation of an author , when writing about any subject, to begin with the existing record. (And DiEugenio was a high school history teacher.) Somehow, this particular author, who apparently fancies himself to be a research genius, managed to write an entire book, supposedly focused on “Parkland,” (which, supposedly, he seeks to “Reclaim”) without mentioning autopsy falsification via body alteration at all. Not one word. You will not find anything about Sibert, or O’Neill in the context of autopsy falsification, or Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag in which JFK’s body was delivered to Bethesda) or Dennis David (whose account is Chapter 25 in B.E., and who testified before the ARRB); or Sgt. Boyajian (whose receipt, unearthed by the ARRB, establishes that the body arrived at Bethesda 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin); nothing about the copious evidence that the body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, and not a word about my work (on video)or my book, Best Evidence, which was published by four publishers, was a best seller, was a Book of the Month Club Selection. Finally, DiEug mentions nothing about the fact that in November 1966, and based on my research at that point in time, UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler wrote a 12 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren (and all other members of the WC) about the autopsy, focusing on the issue of body alteration, and the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery, and recommending a limited re-opening of the investigation, with additional testimony to be taken under oath. Professor Liebeler sent a copy of that memo to the Warren Commission and its alumni, but to Robert Kennedy (via his attorney) and to Lyndon Johnson. All of that is spelled out in Chapter 10 of B.E., but not a peep from DiEugenio. After all, he’s just “reclaiming Parkland.” Huh? The art of "bibliography" - DiEugenio Style (the art of "selective omission") DiEugenio manages to write “Reclaiming Parkland” without mentioning any of that, and then—in compiling his “bibliography’—makes no mention of Best Evidence! I mention this not because I demand complete agreement with my views (I don’t) but because it shows the utter carelessness and disregard for “the record” that an author who behaves this way exhibits, in his public writing to the “research community.” Stalin liked to erase the existence of political opponents--in the realm of history--by simply altering photographs. If Stalin was concerned with published writings, perhaps he could have used someone with that sort of skill, at editing political bibliographies. Anyway, its for these reasons that neither Pat V or I hardly read anything at his website. Why bother? So I thoroughly agree with the gist of your post. I never agreed with his hero worship of Garrison, but disagreement about Garrison is one thing, the callous (and careless) disregard about a whole body or important research about the autopsy, while writing a book titled “Reclaiming Parkland” is quite another. It really takes chutzpah to write a book titled "Reclaiming Parkland" and ignore the most important issue of all--the profane behavior of plotters who messed with the President's body to alter the story of how he died. But I guess DiEugenio thinks that erasing me from the record--or at least, the limited record that he created, i.e., his book) -- will perhaps eliminate the many important issues I have raised, in Best Evidence, from public discussion and debate. I have news for Jim DiEugenio: that's not going to happen. DSL 11/14/2017 – 2:30 a.m. PST Los Angeles, California