David Lifton

A TRIBUTE TO DENNIS DAVID (edited 5/29/17 - 2:30 a.m. PDT) With regard to the recent passing of Dennis David. . : Dennis David caused a fundamental change in the nature of my book, Best Evidence, and I’m writing this to pay a tribute to someone who was your “ordinary” person, but who in fact witnessed something extraordinary, and recounted it accurately when I first contacted him by telephone on July 2, 1979 (and then again—on camera—in October 1980). In doing so, Dennis David rendered a great service to history. For those unfamiliar with the story, what follows is how someone with a vital piece of the Kennedy assassination puzzle shared that puzzle piece with the public at large, without worrying about personal consequences, simply because he knew it to be the truth. There was never a question of having to pay Dennis David any money; he simply acted as he did because he knew it was the proper thing to do. THE BACK STORY Its not possible to explain what he did, without telling a bit of the “story of Best Evidence,” and I will try to be brief, keeping in my that my purpose in writing this tribute is to pay homage to a man who changed the nature of my book and, as far as I am concerned, the proper way to view the Kennedy assassination. After years of work, the contract for my manuscript—originally titled Scenario for Treason—was signed with Macmillan publishing in December 1978, just around Christmas time. The book originally had 24 chapters, and then a concluding chapter. The major thesis -- that the President’s body was altered (i.e., bullets removed, and wounds altered) –was identical to what was (later) published in Best Evidence, but the time line was different. In December 1978, I believed that the covert intercept of President Kennedy’s body had occurred after 7 p.m., EST, at the doorstep to Bethesda Naval Hospital; specifically, that the intercept had occurred sometime between the arrival of the Dallas casket in the naval ambulance (along with Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy) at about 6:55 p.m., and the start of the official autopsy, which commenced at 8 p.m. in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School. The final manuscript was due around September 1979, and the president of Macmillan, Jeremiah Kaplan, took a personal interest in the project. “Don’t worry about what anyone tells you around here,” he said to me around December 1978. If you have a problem, just come to me.” This brings us to what happened on July 2, 1979, when I learned about Dennis David, and spoke with him for the very first time. FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF DENNIS DAVID Another JFK researcher—Wallace Milam—had sent me a newspaper clip from a local Illinois newspaper ((TK: Name it)) stating that a Navy man who had been on duty—someone referred to simply as “the Lake County man”—had stated that the President’s body had not arrived in the naval ambulance carrying the Dallas coffin, and Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy. Rather, it had arrived earlier, in a “black” ambulance (by which, I later learned, he meant a hearse). The information reported in this news clip was remarkable: that the large ceremonilal coffin in the naval ambulance (which crowds of people at the front of Bethesda saw arrive) was empty; and that the President’s body had been delivered “earlier” at the rear morgue entrance. Initially, this had the quality of a “loose end” that I should attend to, and I wasn’t entirely sure what it meant, or where it would lead. Most important, I did not know the name of this Navy person, and I could not responsibly publish the account without identifying the source. So, I called the local newspaper, managed to speak with the reporter, (Art Petersen) and asked for his assistance. He remember the interview he had conducted, several years before, but couldn’t remember the man’s name—only that he had been a bit shy about having his name used.--but he promised to help. The story had been published about five years earlier, in 1975, and he said he would have to search for, and locate, some old files that were in his attic. A few days later, he had found the file, we spoke again, and provided the man’s name: Dennis David. He did not know Dennis David’s hometown, or where he might then be located. At this point, I turned to a friend, Dr. Bernard Kenton, who had a friend in the military at the Long Beach, California, naval facility, and that peson, who was in the Navy, agreed to help. Within a few days, I had the full name –Dennis David—and a location: a small Illinois town I had never heard of before: Hoopeston, Illinois, about 115 miles south of Chicago. According to Wikipedia, Hoopeston had a population of about 5,000 “was laid out in 1871. It was named for Thomas Hoopes, one of the men who offered land for the crossing of two railroads: the Lafayette, Bloomington and Western Railroad and the Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad. The two railroads separated the town into four sections. The latter railroad still exists and is now operated jointly by CSX transportation and Union Pacific Railroad.” It also states that Hoopeston is rather small: that “ [it] has a total area of 3.69 square miles (9.56 km2), all land.[8]” Soon, I had the phone number and on July 2, 1979, I placed the call. I had no idea what might happen next, so as a precaution, I set up a tape recorder, just in case it was significant, and so I would have record of his “first account.” What happened next is described verbatim in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. Dennis David answered the phone, and I introduced myself as an author who was writing a book, and explained that I had the news clip from the t newspaper, and wanted clarification. Could he help? Yes, he could—and would, and did, and what then happened, in that first phone call, changed my thinking about the Kennedy assassination. DENNIS DAVID’S ACCOUNT. . . Dennis described to me what he believed was completely routine, based on his experience in the military, but which was, in fact, extraordinary. The naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline and Bobby Kennedy, he said, carried an empty coffin. How did he know that? Did he see it was empty? No, he didn’t. He knew it was empty because of what he personally witnessed at the rear morgue entrance, about 20 minutes before. I asked him to go through his experience that night, chronologically. And he did. The President’s body, he explained, was delivered to the rear morgue entrance in a black hearse, driven by a civilian, with some half dozen others—men in suits—inside. He assumed they were all federal agents. He had gotten some sailors to unload the coffin, which was a shipping casket. They brought the casket to the morgue entrance, but never went inside. How did he know that the body was in that casket? Because, the next day, he was told that by one of the autopsy doctors, Dr. Boswell, who he knew reasonably weel. Furthermore, after the shipping casket was brought inside, he (Dennis David) went to the front of the hospital and saw the arrival of the naval ambulance, carrying Mrs. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and the large Dallas (ceremonial) casket. But that was a god twenty minutes later. David told me that he asked someone “why all this rigmarole?” and was told the answer: “security,” in case someone might attempt to ”hijack the body.” The tape I made of this (initial) conversation is crystal clear. Its going to be digitized, and placed in the National Archives, in the Kennedy collection. DENNIS DAVID’S UNDERSTANDING. . . Although Dennis David had knowledge of this subterfuge, he honestly believed it was simply a security measure; he was not a student of the Kennedy assassination, had no particular knowledge of any conspiracy, and had no awareness that he had witnessed the inner works of what was, in effect, a murder plot. Yet by the end of this conversation, his account had a profound effect on my own thinking. Before we said our goodbyes, and realizing the historical importance of what he had related, I asked Dennis he would repeat the account on camera, and he assented. He had no problem with that. I did not want to alarm him so I said nothing about the truly historic significance of what he had witnessed. THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE Within an hour of getting off the phone with Dennis, I took out my copy of William Manchester’s Death of a President, and other related “already published” material. By simply drawing time lines, and “running the events backwards in time” (as if David’s account was like a movie, running in reverse), it became obvious that an empty casket at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty casket upon take-off from Dallas. (The basic reason for this conclusion: that once Air Force One took off from Love Field, Jacqueline was always with the casket). That, perhaps, was the most important consequence of Dennis David’s account: President Kennedy’s body was placed inside the Dallas coffin at Parkland Hospital, it was inside the Dallas coffin when that coffin arrived at Love Field and was placed aboard the aircraft. It was not in the coffin about 30 minutes later, when Air Force One took off for Washington. (INSERT: Added on 5/29/16): If someone were to ask me today, "What about Dennis David? Why does his account matter?" The answer is very simple: Dennis David's account, if true, provides direct evidence that the coffin offloaded from Air Force One was empty. Because he was a witness to the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda, he provides direct evidence that the casket off-loaded from Air Force One --i.e., the "Dallas casket") was empty. END INSERT About two weeks later, the Final Report of the House Committee was issued, and I learned about medical technician Paul O’Connor, who had received the President’s body when the shipping casket that Dennis David saw brought to the morgue was opened. Inside, JFK’s body was in a body bag. Just as had been the case with Dennis David, I now called Paul O’Connor, and got a detailed account of his experience: the arrival of the body in a body bag, inside a shipping casket. MEETING WITH JEREMIAH KAPLAN I then arranged a meeting with Jeremiah Kaplan, the President of Macmillan, who had told me, “If you have a problem, you come to me.” Well, I certainly did have a problem. The entire concept of “when and where” this subterfuge had occurred had changed, from December 1978, when I signed the original contract. I needed more time to flesh out the details. I asked for—and was granted—additional time. I also requested that the title of the book be changed to Best Evidence. APRIL 1, 1980 When the final manuscript was turned in on April 1, 1980, the top executives at Macmillan were astonished with the story they now found in the final seven chapters, starting with Chapter 25, titled “The Lake County Informant,” and which told the story of Dennis David, complete with detailed timelines to illustrate the subterfuge he had witnessed at Bethesda. The book was put on an accelerated production schedule, the goal being to have it in book stores by January 1981. The top executives were on tenterhooks as to what the government reaction might be, and I proposed that, to support the credibility of the witnesses, and to prevent anyone in the media from attempting to misrepresent their stories, that the witnesses be filmed. I was particularly concerned that someone like Dan Rather, who held a top position at Sixty Minutes, might attempt to film and misreport—through slick editing—what these witnesses had told me in telephone interviews. Approval was received for this project, and I telephoned Dennis David and the other key witnesses and asked if we could get his story on film. He agreed. OCTOBER 1980 –FILMING DENNIS DAVID The result was a series of remarkable interviews conducted in the last week of October 1980, when we were just about 10 weeks before the public release of the book. Working with an official at PBS in New York, I outlined a script for a proposed documentary. Our third stop was Chicago, where we rented a van, and drove the 100 miles south to Hoopeston, where I met Dennis David (for the first time) along with his wife, Dot, and filmed him at his home. The filming technology at the time was 16 mm negative film, and that meant a separate sound system, proper synchronization, etc. The sound man was Mark Dichter, the cameraman was David Watts. Filming meant the home was crawling with cables for video, audio, and power. Conducting such an interview at someone’s home could be very intrusive, but Dennis David and his wife were both very accommodating. Dennis David went through the same story he had told me on the telephone on July 2, 1979; and we went over it several times, to make sure every detail was accurately recorded. Also, during this interview, I was required to cross-examine my own witness—that is, I had to show Dennis David photographs of the Dallas coffin being onloaded onto Air Force One, and challenging his account that perhaps he was mistaken as to what he saw that night, that perhaps this was actually the coffin he saw being brought into Bethesda, and that his account was the result of a misunderstanding. Dennis David pushed back hard, defending his original account (which is exactly what I wanted, of course). He also added a fact that I’m not sure was in the original phone interview—that there was still another coffin that arrived at Bethesda, via helicopter. This turned out to be important, in terms of the possibility that there was either a decoy casket also sent by helicopter, or that there was validity to the account that a Secret Service agent had been shot that day. No matter, we recorded what he had to say, and included it in the final edit. (During the interview, Dennis’ dog let out a yelp during one of his answers, and we included that, too!) When it was over, we had to disassemble the equipment and hurriedly leave to drive to Indianapolis for the flight to our next destination. EARLY NOVEMBER, 1980 When we returned to New York several days later, the films were sent to Duart Labs for processing, an editing room was rented, and the process of editing began. The person doing the editing was Arnon Mishkin, who was a news editor from WNET (the PBS station in New York). Mishkin knew Steve Glauber, Dan Rather’s producer, and Glauber visited our editing room, at least once, possibly more than once. “Boy, Dan’s going to love this!” he exclaimed, looking forward to the day when our film could be shown to him, so sure was he that Rather would jump at the chance to air it on 60 Minutes. By mid-December, we had a 40 minute version, and Macmillan’s president, Albert Litewka, the editor in Chief, George Walsh, their General counsel, all met at Sixty Minutes, with Executive Producer Don Hewitt, in a screening room. The lights were dimmed, and the film was shown. Of course, all the witnesses—Dennis David, Paul O’Connor, Aubrey Rike—were important. There was silence when the film was completed. Then Don Hewitt spoke up, or should I say, screamed, rather angrily: “Did you pay these people?!” He was really angry. Here we were, bringing him a story, already filmed! “Yes,” I responded. “A dollar, for the release.” (It is customary to get assigned release for from anyone who is filmed, and I had done so.) There was more angry talk, and Mishkin, who knew Hewitt, said something like, “Oh, come on, Don, calm down.” In fact, Hewitt subsided, and then he warmed to the idea of doing a film. DON HEWITT AND DENNIS DAVID. . . He focused on Dennis David, and how he had been told by Dr. Boswell that the shipping casket contained Kennedy’s body, and Boswell’s recent statement, perhaps it was to me, that the never spoke to Dennis David. Hewitt (always with an eye to the theatrical) talked of getting a film crew over to Bethesda and filming Boswell saying exactly that and then contrasting it with the film we had, of Dennis David, saying the opposite. In fact, Hewitt was considering arranging a filmed confrontation between Dennis David and Dr. Boswell. But, to move forward with any of this, Hewitt needed someone who would agree to be the “segment producer.” So he said he would speak with Rather, and arrange for me to meet with me, and for me to show him the film. Mid December, 1980: THE FILM IS SCREENED (by me, personally) FOR DAN RATHER. . . A few days later, I was back at CBS, this time alone, and I met with Dan Rather (who is eight years my senior) in a screening room. Once again, the lights went out, and the film was shown. About 22 minutes later, the film was over. I turned to Rather—the same person of whom Steve Glauber, his producer, had predicted, “Dan’s going to love this!”--but that was not Rather’s reaction. Not at all. Instead, Rather professed puzzlement, as if he were a child, and what I had just shown him was beyond his comprehension. Really: he behaved in that fashion! He did not understand what the film had conveyed, he said, what it was all about. I had to go through it again, explaining it as if he were a child, that if the body was altered, then autopsy results could be changed; not because “the doctors lied,”: but because the “body lied to the doctors.” Rather responded by saying something rather glib (but important) along these lines: “But since Oswald assassinated the President, there would be no need to alter the body.” (Yes, he actually said that, or something darn near close to it. Of course: exactly the opposite was the case: if Oswald had not assassinated the President, then there would be every reason to alter the body, or falsify the autopsy in some way). I could hardly believe my ears. I went over some of the points made in the film, including Dennis David’s account of the arrival of the black hearse, with the shipping casket, prior to the arrival of the naval ambulance at the front ("a good 20 minutes before," said David); and Paul O’Connor’s account of the body arriving inside the morgue, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket (and with an empty cranium). Rather looked at me blankly and said: “Well, I think you’ve found some witnesses who remember things a bit differently.” Hmmm. . . (Added, 5/29/2017--1 a.m. PDT): I was incredulous. At the time, I remember thinking: How can this guy be the anchorman on the CBS Evening News? He's behaving like an ignorant child. How can he fail to understand what I just showed him, and which was laid out, on the screen, plain as day. It was only some years later that I "got it". Rather knew very well what I was showing him, and what I was talking about (just as he knew which way JFK's head went on the Zapruder film). He just wasn't going to deal with it. At all. Not then, and not ever. (But I don't wish to digress here and get into the "dark side" of Dan Rather. Another time. . . as in "Final Charade.") DSL NOTE, 5/29/2017 - 1 a.m. PDT: For those who wish to see the (nearly) identical film shown to Rather (and to Hewitt) in December 1980, just Google "David Lifton, Best Evidence Research Video". Here's the (current) link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWFvcrp-ao What you will see there on the screen is the 37 minute video released (as a VHS, by RHINO video, in 1989). Once there, skip the Intro (that was later added for the 1989 release) and go directly to 6 min 30 second. Starting there, and for the next 25 minutes (approx) is the film that I showed to Dan Rather, sitting next to him, in a screening room, at CBS headquarters ("Black Rock") in New York City in December 1980. I am sure he never forgot the experience. (And there's more to come, when Final Charade is published). RETURNING NOW to this London Forum post, as originally drafted. . . BAD NEWS AND GOOD NEWS. . . That was the bad news. The good news was that because of the foresight I had in creating a filmed record, and the investment made to do this by my publisher, someone like Dan Rather could not now approach the witnesses, film them, and then report to a Sixty Minutes audience that I had misrepresented what they said. The film we created didn’t get us on Sixty Minutes (which of course would have been wonderful); but it prevented someone like Dan Rather from mangling my work, and doing a hit piece on Best Evidence, misrepresenting it, as he did the Zapruder film head snap. January 1981 - DONALD REBENTISCH Comes Forward Sometime in mid-January, I was in Los Angeles, on my book tour, and staying at the Bonaventure Hotel, when the phone rang. It was Jerry Morlock, reporter for the Grand Rapids, Michigan, newspaper. He called to tell me of a witness, Don Rebentisch, who had witnessed the same thing as Dennis David, and who had not yet read the book. I immediately contacted him, and we had a detailed interview. He corroborated Dennis David’s story, and told me that he knew David, because he would, occasionally, play ards with him. He even knew his wife, he said. I’m always careful, and since I had met Dennis’ wife, I asked him a simple question: what’s her first name? “Dottie” (or “Dot”) he replied, and I knew he was “the real deal.” 1988 – KRON-TV (San Francisco) In 1988, former CBS producer Stanhope Gould, and Sylvia Chase--both of whom had been with 20/20, and had moved on to KRON-TV, in San Francisco--arranged to do a major documentary built around Best Evidence. I was a consultant on the show, flew around the country with them on most of the shoots, and arranged for Dennis David to be filmed again. The interview was successful, but Stanhope told me after the broadcast, that nothing compared, for drama, with the original filmed interviews. And the reason was obvious: in October 1980, Dennis was learning, for the first time, the full importance of what he had witnessed. (And the same was true of Rike, O'Connor, and the others). By 1988, they were all quite familiar with the basic material, so it did not have the drama of the original interview, which--through the fine camera work of Dave Watts--captured the impact on their psyche, as each of them had their "moment of truth." July 1989 – With Dennis David, at the Vietnam Wall In 1989, I raised funds by going to numerous family members, and did additional filming of the Best Evidence witnesses. On this occasion, I arranged to have Dennid David flown to Washington, and we went through his story again, only this time “on site”, at Bethesda. We filmed him at the back of the hospital, where the ambulance arrived and then up in the veranda at the front of Bethesda, where he was standing when he saw the naval ambulance arrive. In addition, we went to the Vietnam War memorial, where Dennis David was quite emotional because he was able to find at least one friend of his, who had died in Vietnam, and whose name was inscribed on the wall. The 1989 filming was the last time I saw Dennis David. 1995: THE BOYAJIAN DOCUMENT (is discovered) Around 1995, a JFK researcher discovered a document written by Sgt. Roger Boyajian,who commanded the USMC Security Detail that guarded the morgue. Boyajian said that the body was delivered to the morgue at 18:35 (6: 35 p.m.), which was 20 minutes before the naval ambulance arrived at the front. In our interviews—and particularly in the film interview—Dennis had told me, with considerable force, that the black ambulance he had seen arrive at the back had arrived “a good twenty minutes before" that naval ambulance arrived at the front. Bingo! Here was documentary corroboration for Dennis David’s account!* And it was truly remarkable: in 1980, on camera, Dennis David had specifically mentioned the time lapse as “a good 20 minutes!”. And here was a written document, dated November 1963, which provided corroboration for that exact time lapse: 1835 (6:35) for the arrival of the shipping casket; 6:55 p.m. for the arrival of the naval ambulance. *In a separate post, I will relate the story of the two JFK researchers, opposed to my work, who had this document and withheld it from me for about 18 months, because they knew it would corroborate Dennis David's account, and validate my work. (Some "collegiality" . . eh?) DAN RATHER - - RECONSIDERED. . . I mentioned above the casual way that Dan Rather attempted to dismiss the account of Dennis David (and others) by stating that I had merely found “witnesses who remember things a bit differently.” That was the way Rather brushed off the accounts of Dennis David, and Paul O’Connor. First of all, I resent anyone having the gall to brush off the interview such as the one I had with Dennis David by saying that I had “found a witness who remembered things a bit differently.” Second, when Final Charade is published, the reader will be introduced to some jaw-dropping evidence that suggests that Dan Rather was in fact quite knowledgeable about the body-centric plot that took President Kennedy’s life, and his casual dismissal of a witness as important as Dennis David (blocking my appearance on Sixty Minutes), when joined with the way Rather misreported the JFK headsnap—will take on a new meaning. * * * Dennis David was an ordinary American who happened to be in the right place at the right time. My conversation with him on the night of July 2, 1979 changed the course of my own life, and the nature of the book that I was writing. He was the first witness to provide evidence that led to the conclusion that the coffin off-loaded from Air Force One, in the nationally televised event when Air Force One arrived at Andrews on the night of 11/22/63. was empty. That single fact is simply stunning. On a personal level, I am deeply indebted to the contribution that he made, both to my work, and to history. More important, I would hope that Cleo, the Muse of History, has a special place for someone who performed such a valuable public service, by providing history with an essential “missing piece” of the Kennedy assassination puzzle. Without fully understanding the full implications of what he had seen, Dennis David was one of history's "first responders." And I wish him well. RIP Dennis David. David S. Lifton 5/28/2017 – 7:30 a.m. PDT; edited 5/29/17, 2:30 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul: As someone who has looked at the original FBI 302 report stating what she said on that tapped phone call, it seems clear that the agent making that report was not describing something that was spoken in the spirit of it being a "generic" reference to the general hatred in some quarters in Dallas; and certainly not something spoken in reaction to the Wanter for Treason posters. First of all, I really do believe it was the responsibility of those who conducted the original investigation to question both Paines properly (and aggressively) as to just what they meant. (And remember the original wording: "We" both know who was responsible., That kind of language does not sound like a reference to something that was "generic." Second: this very late arriving "it was only a 'generic' reference, finally stated in the year 2015, does not have the ring of truth. Third, if the Paines really believed that--and believed that at the time--are we to believe that they were implying that the right wing "WANTED FOR TREASON" poster inspired Oswald to shoot JFK? (That makes no sense, and is entirely inconsistent with the Paines' belief that Oswald was, at best, a radical leftist. And was certainly not violent). When you spoke to Ruth Paine, did you press her on her answer? Did you ask any follow-up question(s)? Or did you just sort of "agree," and let the matter go. I really do believe that Ruth Paine owes history a more detailed explanation as to what the FBI reported. A woman as intelligent as she is--remember, she has an IQ of 145 (which was ascertained by another researcher, based on a document)--surely can provide a more detailed explanation than the superficial one that you report. Further, I believe that if you have an ongoing relationship with her, its worth pressing her further on this particular matter. I don't think the issue is "who ordered the phone tap?". The issue is why did she say what she did? And what did she mean by "we" as in "we both know". Sounds like a rather specific reference, to me. DSL 5/28/2017 - 6:55 s.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul Trejo: I hardly have any time to debate these points on the Internet these days, but. . . : Completely aside from new information that I will be offering in Final Charade--let's return to the "old evidence" and take a quick look at 3 factors that should not just "give pause" but make it rather evident that "body alteration" was central to the architecture of the crime--as it was carried out, according to the known historical record--and was therefore "planned in advance". I refer to this as "old" evidence because it is all spelled out in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence: 1. The evidence on the Dallas Police Radio radio, regarding the pinpointing of the sniper's nest. This occurred starting within 3-4 minutes of the shooting of Kennedy. Three cycle officers call attention to "the building" with the third transmission, by DPD Cycle Officer Clyde Haygood, specified the exact location: 6th floor window, SE corner, etc. If the sniper's nest was part of the "set-up,"it is highly unlikely that, as part of the set-up, provision was not made to falsify the autopsy, because the autopsy conclusions, based on the condition of the body, would have to be consistent with the location of the sniper's nest. 2. The "early" planting of bullet 399 This bullet was planted on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital within about 30 minutes of the arrival of JFK at Parkland. In the initial FBI reports, as you surely are aware, the explanation was provided that this bullet "fell out" of a back wound. The problem is: no back wound was observed at Parkland Hospital if you go by the original Parkland Hospital medical records and testimony. Not a single witness saw that wound--and yet, according to the Bethesda autopsy report, it was located "above" the shoulder blade. (I am deliberately ignoring H Livingstone's attempt, somehow, to hoke up a recording the early 1990s, that Diana Bowron saw such a wound. She was asked, under oath, if she saw any wound on JFK's body other than the throat (entry) and the back-of-head exit. She responded: No, no other wound. If the bullet was planted on the stretcher, and the intention was to link it to a shallow back wound--which did not exist--then body alteration must have been planned in advance. Further,as students of the case surely know, a similar incident occurred up in the Connally Operating room. A bullet fell to the floor, and went "clink". Connally described this in his posthumously published memoir. Moreover, those reading this should be aware: one of a quote from Elizabeth Wright, nursing chief at Parkland (and , yes, wife of O P Wright) spoke to a private JFK researcher some years later: " "I wish these people would quit putting these bullets on stretchers." 3. The fact that, according to the arrival sequence of the coffin(s) and JFK's body at Parkland Hospital, the coffin on board AF-1 was empty. I develop this very carefully and with complete timelines, in Best Evidence, Chapters 25 and 28. Bottom line: an empty casket on arrival at the Bethesda front entrance, means an empty casket on take-off from Dallas. If the body was "already" removed from the casket prior to take-off (which was at 2;47 p.m. CST, then the plan "to alter the body" occurred hours earlier than your analysis indicates. Regardless of how you believe the coffin "became"empty--whether it was through chicanery at Parkland or chicanery aboard AF-1, prior to take-off--any plan to get the body out of the coffin that "early" clearly implies a timetable for "altering the body" that is well before 4 pm EST. When #3 joined with items #1 and #2, I think the case if very clear that "body alteration" was not a "4 p.m. (EST)" add-on to the murder. Finally, and as I have said, I will be providing additional significant information that pushes the matter way over the border, and makes clear that autopsy falsification via body alteration is not some kind of conjecture or hypothesis, but is much closer to a historical fact; and that it was part of the original architecture of this murder. DSL 4/30/2017 - 8:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Karl: I understand your argument, and its possible that you are correct, but. . . : But if you are, there's a second witness to Jacqueline Kennedy's arrival (6:53/6:55 p.m.) and that she was inside the Bethesda lobby, a few minutes later (say, 7 p.m.), and a good 25 minutes after the recorded arrival of the body (per the Boyajian document, at 6:35 p.m. ). Who is that witness? Donald Rebentisch (whose account I first published in the 1982 edition of Best Evidence (a Dell paperback) and whose information is so important that I mad sure to include it in the remaining two editions of Best Eividence: the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition, and the 1993 Signet mass paperback edition, both of which carried the autopsy photographs (which I had obtained in December 1982). This "addendum" is titled "Epilogue to 1982 Edition", and you anyone interested in this subject of "time-sequence" should read it, because it explains who Donald Rebentisch is, how I came to interview him, and what he saw. WHO IS REBENTISCH: One of the sailors who was on duty that night, at Bethesda, and who was called upon to assist in unloading the black hearse which arrived with the shipping casket, "a good 20 minutes before" the arrival of the naval ambulance (carrying RFK, Jackie, and the Dallas casket, at the front). HOW DID I HEAR ABOUT REBENTISCH, AND WHEN DID I NTERVIEW HIM? I learned about Febentisch within a few days of the publication of the TIME story (in the issue dated Jan 19, 1981) which carried a two-page story, in the National News section, about the publication of Best Evidence. The TIME story was titled "Now, a Two Casket Argument," and--I was told--almost made the cover, and TIME was serioiusly considering carrying an excerpt of B.E. in that issue. Rebentisch, who lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan, called his local newspaper, and volunteered that yes, he knew about the two-casket business, and had been telling his family all about that for years. So the reporter wrote all of that up in a newspaper account, which was published (locally) in the Grand Rapids Press, and then he telephoned my publisher, to reach me, before it appeared. My publisher told him where to reach me--I was on my book tour, in Los Angeles, and was staying at the very posh Bonaventure Hotel. The phone rang in my room, and I got the message. I immediately realized the potential significance of Rebentisch as a witness, and went to considerable trouble to hook up my freshly purchased SONY mini-cassette recorder to the phone in my room, and called Morlock, who then provided me with Rebentisch's phone number; and soon I was on the phone with Rebentisch. It was a remarkable phone call, because I was able to speak with him--at length, and in great detail--before he had read (or even had a copy of) Best Evidence. He went through his entire account with me, and the most important part, from my standpoint, was that he corroborated the account of dennis David, who was Chapter 25 in Best Evidence. Yes, he was asked (by Dennis David) to assist in the unloading of the black hearse, and yes, he helped carry in the shipping casket. And then--get this--he went up to the Bethesda lobby, which was on the first floor, and there he saw Jacqueline Kennedy (and Bobby, as I recall) waiting at the elevator, to take that "upstairs" to the presidential suite (which we now know, was on the 17th floor). THE IMPORTANCE, HISTORICALLY, OF REBENTISCH'S ACCOUNT Rebentisch's account provided strong evidence that the black hearse--which he helped unload--arrived at the back, before the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy (and Bobby, and the Dallas casket) arrived at the front. As the call came to an end, I was searching in my mind for some way to verify his credibility, because that was most important to me. At some point during the call, he mentioned that he often played cards with Dennis David, and had known him well. Just three months before, in October (1980), I had been to Dennis David's home, in a small town in Illinois, to interview him on camera, and had met his wife. And she had a somewhat unusual first name. "By the way," I asked, "Do you know the first name of Dennis David's wife?" Without missing a beat, he replied, and his answer was correct. As far as i was concerned, that estbalished his credibility. THE CBC DOCUMENTARY--THE EMPTY CASKET--AND REBENTISCH'S ACCOUNT Some months later, in the spring of 1980, and after B.E. had been on the national best seller lists for several months (#1 in both AP and UPI, and $4 on the NY Times list), CBC film producer/director Brian McKenna, approached me, and --using the B.E. footage I already had (from Octobner 1980)--Brian produced a major nationally televised documentary broadcast on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). In connection with the production of that program, he arranged for us to fly to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and we interviewed Rebentish on camera. Brian tells me that the program--"The Empty Casket"--was one of the highest rated TV programs ever broadcast on CBC. THE ORIGINAL MICRO-CASSETTE TURNS UP Finally, this footnote. For years after I re-settled myself in Los Angeles (around May 1985), I couldn't locate what had become of the original cassette of the original January 1981 telephone interview. Just a few years ago, I opened a manila file folder (of many that I have) and out flopped that cassette! Pat Valentino made it his project to transfer to the audio to a digital format and spent the hours it took to make a perfectly accurate transcript. So that's the "happy ending" to the Don Rebentisch story. He's an important witness who corroborates the account of Dennis David, and so --if it turns out that Custer's account was incorrect (whatever the reason)--it doesn't matter, because Rebentisch provides quite powerful corroboration, for the sequence of arrivals: i.e., first, the black hearse (with the shpping casket at the back); and then, some 20 minutes later, the naval ambulance arriving with Jacqueline Kennedy, RFK, and the Dallas coffin at the front. Bottom line: The Dallas coffin--the coffin offloaded from Air Force Once, in the nationally televised arrival of AF-1 from Dallas--was empty. More on that another time. DSL 4/26/17 -8 a.m., PDT Los Angeles, California

Karl: There is obviously a conflict between Custer's account, and the Ebersole account. Please keep this in mind: 1. When I spoke with Ebersole (8/27/72) he either said (or implied) that the autopsy began at 10 p.m. 2. Custer told me from the beginning (Sept/Oct 1980) of this incident. I didn't lead him on in any way; he simply volunteered it. Whose story is correct? An interesting question which is not easy to analyze. Neither are "perfect" witnesses. DSL

Ray: I sent you a private message some hours ago. I found (I believe) what I was looking for. Then I tried to send you a followup message, saying so. . . But your mailbox is full You can email me privately at dsl74@cornell.edu for further details. DSL

Chris: No time for any detailed postings, but i don't understand why RP's story doesn't add up or boggles the mind. First of all, Lee was "playing" her. So he writes this deliberately provocative letter, deliberately leaves it out where she can see it, she glimpes the opening line or two, her curiosity is aroused, and she takes the bait. The result: there are three documents created: 1. The LHO original handwritten draft 2. The copy that Ruth Paine made 3. The typed item that LHO wrote, on RP's typewriter, and which was mailed to the SOviet Embassy. Ruth Paine ended up with her own handwritten copy of LHO's copy (and then she filched his "original"--correct?) So: When the assassination occurred, and he stood accused, she was upset--if not horrified--at what she finds herself having been dragged into. So then she turns over both items to the FBI. She wanted nothing further to do with the whole situation. FWIW, and especially from my 1995 (approx) conversation with Arthur Young, Ruth (without question) believed LHO's guilt; but even more important, it deeply affected her psyche and her belief about "the way things work" that such an insignificant twerp and non-entity as Oswald (again, this was her perception) could have murdered a president she much admired. From talking with Arthur Young and with Michael Paine, and with the Paine relative who I got to know pretty well (and who assisted me, and wanted to get to the bottom of all of this), I believe I can state, with considerable confidence, that Ruth Paine never outgrew her almost sophomoric view of Oswald. Why that w the case I do not know, but she could never break through and get beyond that. And BTW, she's a very intelligent woman. Her IQ --I later learned--was up around 145. In the gifted range. In the Feb/March 1963 period, when it became clear that DeM would be leaving for Haiti, it was almost as if there was a "transfer of custody" of Marina and LHO over to Ruth Paine, and I always found that hard to accept as coincidence. But I can easily see that being "arranged" if Dulles asked his former mistress if she new anyone in Dallas who might assist in the "resettling" of a returned defector, and so that's how Ruth Paine was "selected" for that task. So that's what I always believed may have occurred, and nothing more sinister. Oswald's handler was definitely not Ruth Paine, but there was a handler, I am certain of that. Different subject; another tie. DSL 4/25/2017 - 10:35 a.m. PDT

Micah: I don't believe Michael Paine lied. To the contrary: he told the TV show exactly what he told me (in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass)--and we went through it in considerable detail. Here's what Michael did not do. He did not (as far as I recall) relate that incident to the WC, when he testified. If I'm wrong, point me to the page of the WC deposition where he tells them, but I don't think he ever did. Puzzled? Here's what's going on. . . : LHO was, in effect, "strutting his stuff" and "bragging" about what a great revolutionary he was. Paine elected not to tell that to the WC, but it was a vivid memory, it actually happened, and he started telling that years later. Many JFK researchers jumped on that because it contracted their view that LHO couldn't possible have possessed the back yard photos in March or April 1963. . because they believe these pictures were fabricated much later, i.e., after JFK was murdered. Well, they're wrong; and their whole model of "conspiracy"--if its built around that --is incorrect. Seriously incorrect. LHO very likely --as Larry Schiller speculated to me, back in 1967--made those picture(s) himself (after Marina photographed him, but he did the fabrication, probably changing the rifle, etc). . but all of that took place during the period he was employed at Jaggars, and then he put copies of them in the family photo album, and had this particular copy in full view, on a table or something, when Michael Paine picked him up to go to dinner at Ruths. Bottom line: LHO "played" the Paines. both of them. The great Trotskyist revolutionary. I could add "IMHO", but I won't, because i truly believe that's what happened, and that's what's going on here. DSL 4/25/2017 - 4:55 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul: I understand your point of view, but here's the problem: There is no Dallas Police Department record--no DPD report, no DPD inventory, no DPD photographs, etc. --nor is there any such FBI record, of a filing cabinet. Filing cabinets are big items - -I know. I have over 45 of them--2 drawer, 4 drawer, and 5 drawer. Items that big couldn't just "disappear"--I don't think. So my take on this, over the years, is that what someone called a "filing cabinet" was in fact a little metal box with some 5 x 7 index cards inside. And that's why, when I was carefully reviewing the FBI (and/or DPD, I forget which just now) "property lists," the presence of those particular cards excited my interest. And that's why I ordered copies of them. Hope this clarifies the situation. Believe me: I wouldn't put anything past the DPD, but its just not in the range of plausibility that they could make a 4 drawer filing cabinet (or even a 2 drawer one) just disappear. Without a trace. And without someone saying, "Oh yeah, and then I saw these mover people come in and they were rolling this filing cabinet out on a dolly". You know what I'm getting at. As for those small metal boxes that hold 3 x5 or 5 x 7 index cards--that's an entirely different story. DSL 4/21/2017 - 10:45 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

TESTING.

Jim: I believe its you who is misinformed. The "Speculations and Rumors" section of the Warren Report (Appendix 12) does address the (apparently mistaken) report that the DPD "found in Oswald's room seven metal file boxes with the names of Castro sympathizers." The WCR report goes on to state that that was not true. No file boxes of any kind were found in Oswald's room at Beckley Street. Here's the link the USG Printing office version of the Warren Report; and what I'm referring to can be found on page 666 (second "speculation" from the bottom). https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html As to the matter of what was found in Ruth Paine's garage, the Report (at that point) claims that there were some small file boxes, but "most of" that material were purely personal items that belonged to Ruth Paine. In perusing those DPD inventories years ago, I found the mention of some 5 x 7 (from memory) Index cards, and I ordered copies of them, and that's what I was referring to. DSL 4/21/2017; 9:55 a.m. PDT

Paul: I ordered some of those index cards quite a few years ago. As I recall, this is probably 5-10 years ago, what I received back from NARA were several 8 x 10 photocopies of the original NARA items which were 5 x 7 ("Oxford") index cards of the type one could purchase at any stationary store (or, today, from Amazon). Here's what was significant: just as Sylvia Meagher said in her book --Accessories after the Fact (in the chapter she wrote titled "Hidell", where she discussed this matter), it took a certain subtlety of mind (on LHO's part) to create an index card filled out in the name of his own alias, i.e., in the name of an imaginary person. This card proved that Lee Oswald had done exactly that. In other words, I now held, in my hands, a photocopy of an index card that Lee Oswald had personally made out in the name of Hidell, a fictitious person (to use the language of the Warren Report). To state the matter somewhat differently: Oswald was sufficiently organized--mentally--to set up a primitive filing apparatus to keep track of his own self-impersonation. I will be dealing with this matter in some detail in Final Charade, and can't elaborate further at this time). DSL 4/20/2017 - 8:40 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Glad to see that you are keeping up to date on whom I have swapped ideas with, but I haven't spoken to Wallace Milam in over 25 years. (But yes, he was someone I knew and who provided a valuable news tip, and his name --properly credited--appears on the second page of Chapter 25 of B.E.) As for LBJ, I think if Shakespeare were alive today, and researching the Kennedy assassination, he'd likely consider LBJ a "person of interest." (See his play, Mac something-or-other). As for the JCS, I've grown more or less agnostic. If this was really a body-centric plot, as I stressed in my November 2013 talk at Bismarck State College (Google David Lifton Bismark to view it on YouTube) one really does not need the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force. And you couldn't send an aircraft carrier to the Dallas area, even if you wished to do so, because there's no nearby body of water sufficiently large enough accommodate such naval hardware. (Although it might be helpful if the Navy would provide "command and control" at one of the nation's naval hospitals). Anyway, send Wallace my regards. DSL 4/20/2017 0 19L35 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Hi Chris, I don't (necessarily) see what the problem is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but--now relying on recollection--Oswald left a handwritten copy of the letter he had mailed out there in full view on some surface. She picked it up out of sheer curiosity, read it, and got somewhat alarmed. And she decided she would give it to Agent Hosty. That's my recollection of the sequence. Why is that baffling? Please explain, and if time permits, I'll try to reply further. DSL 4/20/2017 - 7:10 a.m. PDT

Yes, he told me that too (when I spent time with him at his home in Boxnboro, Mass., circa 1995); and I do not believe he was lying. We went over (and over) that point carefully. If there was any lying on his part--and without returning to the original Paine FBI interviews, and his multiple depositions I can't be sure at this writing--the problem was that he never volunteered that to the Warren Commission. I'm writing from memory here, so please don't take this as fact without verification: but the significance of Oswald having an "enlarged" picture of the backyard photograph, in his Neely Street apartment, was that he most likely made the item himself, using the enlarger at Jaggars. This fit with what Larry Schiller told me back around 1967--that it was his (very informal) opinion that if the backyard photos were forgeries, then Oswald made them himself. DSL 4/20/2017 - 6:55 a.m PDT

Sandy, (and also to Ron Ecker, the first post on Web page #31): Thanks for your post. I've written quite a bit on this thread because I'm in the process of assembling the Final Charade manuscript and its very helpful to put certain ideas "out there" if only to see the response. (In a way, its an intellectual form of "market research"). Rest assured that I have learned from some of my experiences on the Internet, and my experiences on this thread have been no exception. Some of my closest friends are teachers, and--as I know all too well from them, and as you probably are aware--teachers will often say that while students learn, in a classroom experience, the reverse is also true. Teachers will tell you that they often "learn from the students." That applies to this thread, too. FYI: With the exception of a few scattered months here and there on other projects, I have spent full time on the Kennedy case since the initial publication of Best Evidence in January 1981. I have done a considerable amount of traveling and interviewing, have made a number of very significant discoveries, and have done some very significant filmed interviews. So, in fact, I have more than just Final Charade in the pipeline. I have two other manuscripts: one concerns the Secret Service; the other, the Zapruder film. FILMING WITNESSES The filmed interviews I have spanned a sufficient time period that they represent three (3) separate periods of technology, and three entirely different kinds of film equipment used, as the technology changed. My Best Evidence filmed interviews were done in October 1980, and constituted my first "film making" experience. At that time, the medium (for professional filming) was 16mm color film, and required a cameraman and a soundman (and, often, a separate producer). The costs were about $3500 - $5000 / per shoot, and then came the costs of film processing at the famous "Duart" in New York City, and then the renting of a full editing facility. That was October 1980, and you have seen the result in the Best Evidence Research Video (which sold about 50,000 copies, when it was originally marketed as a VHS cassette, by Rhino, and then Warner, for about $29, and is now available (free) on YouTube). Then came a period where the modality of choice was "hi 8". The result: I have a small library of "hi 8" work --and that period was, roughly, 1989 and for some years afterwards. Then came the period we are in now, everything is now "digital," and some interviews can be done by remote, (i.e., via Skype). FWIW: I did not start out to be a filmmaker, but I felt a strong responsibility to put, on camera, accounts which are of particular historical significance. One disadvantage from the long period of "investigation and research" is that there are certain advances I have made that I don't believe can--or should--be released until that can be done in the context of the finished work. That is why I have said, for example, that I have important evidence bearing on the question of whether it was planned, in advance, to alter President Kennedy's body as part of the crime, and I have stated that yes, I believe that to be true, but that the full revelation of that proposition (or "thesis", if you will) will have to await its presentation in Final Charade. NOW RETURNING TO YOUR POST. and the question you have raised. . . This is a somewhat long-winded way of returning to your post, and addressing the point you have raised. To restate the major part of your question: "I'm curious to see what you write in Final Charade that explains how Oswald just happened to get the right job at the right time, so that he could play the part of patsy." Let's modify the last few words, because there's a difference between a "patsy" and a "fall guy." So I would modify your question: ". . so that he could be the unwitting fall guy in the Kennedy assassination." Yes, I believe I have the answer to that question; that I can answer the "how-Oswald-got-the-job" puzzle piece and why a proper analysis absolves Ruth Paine from being on "the dark side" of that issue. Final Charade will present what I believe will be seen as solid and persuasive evidence of just how this (Texas) plot was structured and why it is reasonable to maintain that Oswald's employment on the Kennedy parade route was not a coincidence; and yet--at the same time--will explain how it is that Ruth Paine was (a) not part of any conspiracy and (b) had no foreknowledge whatsoever of Kennedy's impending demise. Unfortunately, my analysis in this area-cannot be published (until it can be published in the full context provided by Final Charade). As in the case of whether body alteration was part of the crime, etc. this matter, too, really cannot be addressed"out of context" of the full book. But that's OK; because, as I am reminded by a businessman I know, and who is aware of the exigencies of business: when a client starts pressuring him, he responds: "Do you want it right? OR do you want it "right now"? THE CONSEQUENCE OF NOT HAVING A READILY AVAILABLE EXPLANATION Meanwhile, this delay gives certain people "free reign" to run around emoting righteously on the Internet, and casting the Paines in a false light, mainly because they (certain researchers) never solved this aspect of the puzzle. They don't know the answer, and so they are just as mystified by the situation today--in 2017--as Gerald Ford was over 50 years ago. Remember what Ford said in Portrait of the Assassin? Oswald's job on the parade route had to be a quirk of fate, said Ford, because he had interviewed the key persons involved, and it was all the result of a coffee klatch and coincidence. Presently, certain researchers can recycle that, and can smugly hold forth with a piece of circumstantial evidence, and subscribe to the "other side" of the Gerald Ford coin: that the Paines ought to have been prosecuted, or ought to be in prison, etc etc. Another may join in (carefully measuring his words to avoid getting dragged into a lawsuit): "I think we must be careful; we must have a proper accounting because there may have been a coup in this country in November 1963.” So there the seed is planted that the Paines may have been knowingly involved in an American coup d'etat. (And, of course, back when Oliver Stone made JFK [released in December 1991], he, too, didn't want a lawsuit, but on the other hand, he wanted to make the point that the Paines seemed to have some unusual friends, and so to deal with that issue, he renamed Ruth Paine as a fictional character named "Janet Williams." ) Let me be candid about this: If the Paines were younger, and cared to engage in appropriate legal counsel and someone attempted to write a book or make a movie implicating them (either in Kennedy's murder, specifically, or in a coup d'etat, in general), and presented their project in a misleading fashion to gain their permission to "go on camera," I think they could initiate significant legal action against anyone who behaved in that fashion; and specifically, anyone who attempted to blacken their name in history based on the kind of superficial analysis I have seen promoted over at the website formerly named CTKA. And, who knows, maybe some day it will come to that. (Recently, the website Gawker was put out of business because what the founder thought was "news" crossed over the line. Way over the line.) So, IMHO, those who are itching to put the Paines in prison (or link them to a 1963 coup) ought to be careful. Very careful. The fact that someone has not figured out the proper answer to this or that aspect of the JFK assassination puzzle---which, as I said, in some ways is akin to a Rubik's Cube--does not give them license to smear of libel another person or damage another person's reputation, or blacken their name in history. No one has a license to conduct a witch hunt--on camera--and call that "investigative journalism." We all have read accounts of bullying in middle school and high school---which gets so out of hand that the victim finally cannot take it anymore and takes his (or her) own life. The Paine's have had it pretty rough. They were hosts to an individual who, unknown to them, was the predesignated fall guy in an upcoming presidential assassination. This business of "blaming the Paines" offers a seriously mistaken (but superficially attractive) "conspiracy hypothesis" for those who are intellectually lazy, and whose problem is that they never got to the bottom of this particular aspect of the JFK puzzle, and I'm concerned that it may get worse before it gets better. Unsolved crimes offer fertile ground for rumor mongering and demagoguery. Especially for those who are basically cowards, but have a secret desire to present themselves as a man on a white horse. To return now to the quote previously cited, because that provides a good example of someone with one eye on his retirement account (because he wants to appear to have exercised “due diligence”); but with the other focused on the accusation he so dearly wishes to level against the Paines; so finally he works up his courage, throws caution to the winds, takes the plunge, and this is the way it comes out: "I think we must be careful; we must have a proper accounting because there may have been a coup in this country in November 1963.” As in: "I've got a lot of money (oh so much money!); but I've consulted with my attorney, and I think its safe for me to say it that way." Yeah, OK. . if you insist. You're not actually Patrick Henry, but that'll do. Stay tuned. DSL 4/20/2017 - 6:15 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Ron: I agree there was pre-arrangment of a sort, and that's very important--of course it is--but this problem has not been analyzed correctly. My own analysis, and what I believe to be a valid explanation, will be included in Final Charade. (I cannot get into that, at this point.) But, changing the subject, and FWIW: I am far more concerned about the Paines, in the Feb/March 1963 time frame, than in the October 15/17th 1963 time frame. My question is, more or less, how did the Paines get involved with Oswald, in the first place? (Sure, I know the "official" explanation; they were introduced by DeMohrenschielt, at a party, etc.) But I do not believe that is the full story. And what, to my mind, has never been resolved, is the possible hand (once again) of Allen Dulles. Read on. . . FYI: Michael Paine's mother--also named Ruth--was best friends with the mistress (in years past) of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft. Bottom line: Mary Bancroft was a major person in Allen Dulles' life. Now CUT TO the 1980s. Mary Bancroft --living in Manhattan on the upper East Side) wrote a book--Autobiography of a Spy, published in 1983, which is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the possibility of a Dulles-through-Bancroft-to Paine "connection." No proper questioning or investigation of this linkage was ever conducted--as far as I can tell. But there's the possibility of a key link, and it was not just "never pursued"; it worse than that: it wasn't even known to exist, back in the 1963/64 time frame. Food for thought. And now, for the finale, and you can view this as a Postscript: if you look back at an earlier post that I made on this thread: what I've just described is why Pat Valentino and I--accompanied by a member of the Paine Family--went to Berkeley, California (circa 1993-1995), and spent an hour or more with Michael Paine's mother (Ruth) and her husband Arthur Young. Ruth was above 90 years old, and we couldn't tell -when I asked all the key questions--whether she was feigning memory loss, or the fact that she was just getting over a bad cold, or just didn't know. But it was a really interesting , and potentially significant, experience. One other final thought, and this concerns DiEugenio, and the whole question of the Paines: I've spent time with Ruth Paine's mother (and Michael's step-father, Arthur); I've spent time with Michael Paine himself, in a mult-hour taped interview at his home in Boxboro, Mass; and I did all of this with the assistance of a younger member of the Paine family. Meanwhile, DiEugenio sits in his lofty armchair, over at CTKA, and throws darts at the Paines, making clear his belief that he believes they both committed crimes, and perhaps should have been prosecuted, and belong in jail. He doesn't understand the medical evidence, and relies on Gary Aguilar for his (mis) information in that area. He was a big promoter of John Armstrong (and his two-Oswald theory) when that was the flavor of the month. From what I can see, he's not going to win any awards for investigative journalism, in this area, nor has he developed the skills to interview anyone properly, or the ability to "walk in the other guy's shoes." But he has a website and a following. Go Figure. DSL 4/19/2017 - 6:15 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Will come back to this post later, if time permits. i just want to call your attention to a chronological error. Your post states: "The context itself is riveting: Oswald had spent face time with Kositkov in the presence of Nechporenko, but had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin. Together and separately they interviewed Oswald for a total of 2.5 hours on Thursday 9/26 and Friday 9/27. " Oswald did not arrive in Mexico City until the morning of Friday, 9/27. On 9/26, he was still en route. DSL

Paul: Much delayed, and in the spirit of "clean-up": I do not have the time to debate (or "re-litigate") the entire Ricky White/ Roscoe White matter. Suffice it to say that this whole area was widely debated--and (IMHO) seriously debunked, some 20 years ago (if memory serves). To anyone following this discussion, simply Google the two names, and set aside hours for reading through all of that. As I recall, Dave Perry analyzed it and did a good job; and there are one or more articles about it at the McAdams website. My own recollection: it was a farce, and --essentially--established to be a hoax. I would never ever base any legitimate assassination analysis on the accounts of Rickey White. It was all dissected, deconstructed, and proven to be malarky. (And, in the spirit of FYI, I recollect Robert Groden, appearing on some talk radio show, trying to milk every last drop from that false story). DSL 4/19/2017 - 5:05 p.m. PDT

A lot is at stake here (the legitimacy of an LHO phone call), and so I would go back to the original CIA documents (e.g., the detailed chronologies) that were submitted by CIA to the Warren Commission. Do those documents state that the Cuba Consulate was closed on Saturday? (I don't remember.) Let me put it this way: when someone asserts that the Cuban consulate was "closed to visitors" on Saturday, 9/29, then I want to see the underlying documents that say that. The matter is too important to assert it as something we should believe because it is something that "all hands say." DSL 4/19/2017 - 10:40 a.m. PDT

Yes, we apparently agree on Ruth Paine. And to anyone attempting to follow this discussion, let me offer the following advice. To understand Ruth Paine, and to appreciate Ruth Paine's situation, it is helpful to do all of the following: 1. Read the entire sequence of Ruth Paine FBI interviews --some in the 26 Volumes, some not. 2. Read all of her testimony (and she testified several times) 3. Watch her appearance on the London produced "Trail of Oswald" (1985 where she undergoes examination by Bugliosi and cross-examination by Pence). 4. Watch her very early Dallas (KRLD -TV) interviews (which I recently viewed on YouTUbe), Those interview(s) were in December 1963. Important. 5. Dig up and study the very friendly 1967 letter that she wrote Garrison, wishing him well, etc. 6. Read and study her New Orleans NODA (Grand Jury) testimony. Please Note: Besides doing all of the above, I spent several hours with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. It was taped interview that was so intense that Michael started to cry. Pat Valentino and I also interviewed Michael Paine's 90+ year old mother (also named "Ruth") in Berkeley, California, around 1995. Also, Michael Paine's step-father, Arthur Young. Helping me get access to various members of the Paine family was a member of that family, from a younger generation, a nephew of Arthur Young, who also wanted to get at the full truth. But back to DiEugenio: DiEugenio runs a completely biased website at CTKA. The one area where he got everything right, I believe, concerns the CIA and and the assassination of Lumumba. And by closely following John Newman, he understands that there was a foreign policy reversal between what Kennedy intended to do in Vietnam (withdraw) and what Johnson subsequently did (escalate). ALso: I'm glad to see that DiEugenio recognizes that Judyth is a fantast. But one must heavily discount much else at CTKA that he writes about. There--as the so-called "Chairman of the Board" (or at least, that's what he used to call himself, and sign his intro statement each month--he indulges in all his favorite biases, and its all rather insidious. Under the guise of scholarship, DiEugenio fosters and promulgates a seriously warped view of the JFK case. One of his peculiar ideas, for example, is that John and Robert Kennedy knew nothing about the anti-Castro assassination plots--that they were innocent, and it was all concocted behind their backs over at CIA. (Totally absurd and ridiculous; and I say that even though the CIA's IG report, written when Bobby was still alive, covered for him). Another is that everything in Seymour Hersh's 1997 book, The Dark Side of Camelot, can be discounted. (Not true. Not by a long shot.) Another is his mistaken idea that everything is "after-the-fact." Another of his pet ideas is that Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. His CTKA site takes a completely biased anti-Best Evidence stance, whether the basic concepts came from me, or, years later, or from Doug Horne. Once, on Black Ops Radio, DiEugenio said that the reason the coffins were different that the ambulance containing Jackie and Robert Kennedy stopped --yes stopped!--en route from Andrews AFB to Bethesda. I have had any number of reports from people who have had contact with DiEugenio. When the subject of Best Evidence comes up, his eyes just glaze over. He cannot handle it. He has no basic understanding of the medical evidence, always referring to certain third parties (Aguilar, et al) when he wants to say anything in that area. He's like a poor student who, not understanding physics says "I can't answer that. I know nothing about physics. But here, speak to my friend John Smith, he knows all about physics." He actually eulogizes the late Roger Feinman, the disbarred lawyer who was fired from CBS news and who wrote a libelous and malicious (unpublished manuscript) about me. He hardly understands the truth about Marina (he once made disparaging statements about her, stating that of course he wouldn't deign to interview her, because he knows she is a xxxx) and, finally, he would like to put the Paines--both of them--in jail. The list goes on. Another time. DSL 4/19/2017 - 10 a.m. PDT

I thought all of that occurred on Saturday, 9/28. [Corrected] (At least, according to Nechiporenko's book). Now maybe the Enquirer, many years later, reported it differently. (That I don't know). And in the spirit of "P.S."--if anyone has a good, readable, photostat of that article, along with its date of publication, please do send it to me at: dsl74@Cornell.edu). Thanks. DSL

No, I believe you are incorrect. As I have stated on a number of occasions, there doesn't have to be a perfect correspondence between the "plot as conceived" and the "plot as executed." As conceived, Oswald was obviously designed to appear as someone with "foreign" and subversive connections. Within an hour or two of the murder, President Johnson and other top officials were doing everything they could to "put that fire out." (My quotes). Furthermore, on Monday, November 25th (and as readily apparent from the language of the Katzenbach-to-Bill Moyers memo) the Dept of Justice was dong everything it could to mute, if not eliminate, any talk of the involvement of any foreign power. Remember who Nicholas Katzenbach was: he was RFK's top aide and confidant. In view of all of these multiple "conflicting agendas," I don't see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn as to precisely what was the "ideological design" of the original plot, simply by relying on the precise way the crime was reported in the Warren Report., Sure, there could have been some rogue person who thought that JFK's assassination could be parlayed into an invasion of Cuba; but that was clearly not the intention of the civilian leadership of this government. DSL 4/29/2017 - 9:23 a.m.