David Lifton

You're being way too kind to call Hay's review "flawed." I just read through some of his writings and they are absurd. He writes well, but his facts are screwed up, and he's guilty of terrible cherry picking--which he loves to accuse others of. Some quick examples: 1. Ruth Paine was --imho--not part of any conspiracy. But he refers to her as "the custodian" of the evidence against Oswald. That's just sheer nonsense. (She's a custodian because Oswald kept a rifle in the garage?) 2. Hay says no one saw Oswald with "the" rifle or "a" rifle (which is not clear) for two months perior to the assassination. Has he (conveniently) forgotten about those who saw Oswald engaged in rifle practice, the week before? What about Dr. Wood, and his son? They were deposed by Liebeler. Has Hay (convieniently) forgotten about that testimony? 3. Hay makes it appear that because Ruth Paine telephoned the TSBD, she "got him" the job. More nonsense. Hay clearly does not know the "back story" of that situation. Its not so simple, Martin. I think you need to study up on that situation. 4. He says that the call to Ruth Paine from Michael Paine was a collect call (huh?) and made on 11/22. Pardon me, but I remember seeing those FBI reports, and I think they are dated 11/23. (If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. But for Hay to reference that to John Armstrong is very "iffy". And his whole rendition of the situation is akin to a novelist telling a story. 5. In the area of the medical evidence--it seems to me that anyone who is a sentient human being with an IQ above room temperature has to realize that-wound sizes and such discrepancies aside--there is definite evidence that JFK's body did not make an uninterrupted journey from Parkland to Bethesda. It left in a ceremonial casket, arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket; it left Dallas wrapped in sheets; arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. All of this was established by interviews I conducted in 1979 (and published in Best Evidence) and then in filmed interviews in October 1980. (Google: Best Evidence Research Video) Stanhope Gould--the senior producer at CBS (under Cronkite) who later worked at KRON-TV in San Francisco, and who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a TV recap of my work (1988) re-interviewing the key witnesses, said that I ("David Lifton") had "courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda." But, our friend Martin Hay, who decries cherry picking, and tells us that WC attorney Willens was "in denial," engages in that very same behavior when it comes to the issue of autopsy fraud, and , in particular, autopsy fraud that began with the covert intercept of the body, and then the matter of bullet removal and wound alteration. How anyone can engage in this sort of behavior and remain credible is completely baffling. 6. Does Hay believe that Lyndon Johnson became president because Harold Willins (and others on the Warren Commission) endorsed the single bullet theory? IMHO: Martin Hay emerges as a propagandist with a very narrow view of conspiracy and who wears blinders as to what kind of conspiracy he finds to be "politically correct" (by his standards). And he is often ill informed. A writing style that is stylish is not a substitute for getting one's facts correct, or avoiding key areas of data that any historian or law professor would understand are in the realm of 'best evidence.' Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin. Then Hay has the gall to package his ill-informed beliefs as if he knows the truth, and everyone else is either mistaken or intellectually dishonest. (And, of course, he will be the judge, excusing himself, of course, when he indulges in such behavior). Does Hay understand that documents--and about 10 witnesses--establish that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the Navy ambulance carrying the coffin? Or has that escaped his notice? Does Hay understand that serious minded lawyers for Macmillan checked and reviewed the evidence of intercept before accepting my manuscript for publication? And before running ads across the nation showing the AF-1 offload and proclaiming: "The coffin was empty?" Does Hay understand the screening process that goes into the selection of a book for "Book of the Month" selection? And which resulted in the selection of BEST EVIDENCE --from over ten of thousands of books, as a Book of the Month alternate in early 1981? Does Hay understand that my book was published by four separate publishers over a 17 year period (yes, there will be a fifth) and that there was not a single lawsuit? Instead of dealing with real data and the most important data of all--that resident in the President's body--Hay crawls into his shell, this cocoon that I call a "1967 view" of the JFK case, fourteen years before the publication of Best Evidence, and reports back from his time-capsule as if the truth wasn't found because of a political conspiracy on the staff of the Warren Commission. Oh yeah. . sure. . dream on, Martin Hay. The truth wasn't found in this case because of fraud in the evidence. Not all of the evidence, but a critical part of it. The truth wasn't found, in this case, because of the successful execution of a strategic deception on November 22, 1963, and in the days immediately following, which created the false appearance that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon; and that Oswald was the assassin. The notion that Hay's kind of oversimplified, juvenile analysis--his oversimplified view of "political science"--circa, 11/22/63 ( Martin Hay style)-- is continually posted at CTKA, where--apparently--it receives the blessing of DiEugenio is most unfortunate. Does Martin Hay really want to solve the Kennedy assassination, or is he interested in an interminable debate? I recall what a law professor said --most unfairly--about Mark Lane, but which certainly applies to Martin Hay: "Great lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; Martin Hay has an instinct for the capillaries." DSL 4/2/16 - 6:49 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Tippit's body was not "switched" for Kennedy's. Surely you don't believe such nonsense. Why even bring that up? DSL

Robert: I would like to dialogue with you, but time is limited, and your post is confusing. Please clarify your point number 3 (because I never said there was 'no back wound'). What I said is that any back wound on the rear surface of the body was man made. What is not clear is just when these man made wounds were created. Years ago, I wouldhave said "whenever and wherever" the body was altered. But now I know a lot more, and I think that either (or both) were made at the Bethesda morgue, and prior to the arrival of the FBI agents at 7:17 p.m. Please clarify point # 3. Make clear what you are saying. Secondly: I never said (or implied) there was not a problem with the right lung. Just read the autopsy report, and Humes testimony. Its all right there. (One does not need the deviated trachea to understand that). Humes spells it out--the bruise, the pyramid shaped scar, the fresh blood etc. My issue is your (apparent) belief that the cause of it is the impact of real shot fired from the rear. No, that cannot be so if there was no such rear entry at Dallas. A serious question is: what caused the damage to the right lung, and what became of the missile? Where did it go. Remember what Dr. Clark told the NY Times: that it "ranged downward and did not exit." Finally, your argument about the chest tubes baffles me. One cannot substitute a theory about whether this or that person is a xxxx, with genuine anatomic evidence. Three doctors signed an autopsy report which made clear those tubes were not pushed all the way in. That's data which I respect--and certainly more powerful and substantive (as evidence) than a hypothesis as to whether someone who lied about "A" might also have lied about "B" (or not). etc. Anyway, please clarify, and then maybe we can communicate further. Again, your diagrams are great. No need to post them anymore. Thanks. DSL 10/27/15 - 5:20 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Robert: The system would not let me post a reply to your prior post (your post # 218 on this thread) so I'm placing it here. The diagrams you are using are excellent, as is the material you are quoting (from medical reference works) about the procedure for inserting a chest tube. However. . . : you are jumping from the fact that it takes “only a few more seconds” to the conclusion that because that is so, the tube was (in fact) pushed all the way in. Not so. According to the chief autopsy doctor (Humes) who actually examined JFK’s body, neither tube was pushed all the way in. To repeat: I understand how “easy it is “ (my quotes) to take the final step, and push the tube all the way in. No question about that. The fact is, however, that it was not done. And that “fact” is based on what Humes observed at Bethesda when he examined JFK’s body. The fact: it wasn’t done. It wasn’t pushed all the way in. Your final statement exposes the problem with this line of reasoning. Quoting: “Why would the surgeons go so far as to make the shallow incision(s) in JFK's chest, and not take a few more seconds to insert the chest tubes?” A fair question, but not a substitute for evidence that the tube was pushed all the way in; and it wasn’t. Indeed, based on the observable facts, at Bethesda (as reported by Commander Humes, who did the examination of JFK’s nbody) neither chest tube was pushed all the way in. DSL 10/26/15 - 8:50 PM PDT PS. A small format note. When quoting medical manuals (as you did), and then adding your own commentary (which is fine), either use quotation marks on the former; or use a different font. When reading your post, I had difficulty, at the tail end, distinguishing between the book you were quoting, and your own commentary.

James: I do not disagree—at all—with the data you are citing. To the contrary, I agree with all of it. What I take issue with—i.e., where I disagree-is with the inference that some draw from the data. As I wrote, I do not believe it to be legitimate methodology to link the pneumothorax (and the data you cited to support that) with an impact at T-3. Again: it’s the notion that the pneumothorax can legitimately be cited as circumstantial evidence of a T-3 impact is where the problem lies. One other matter: in your very carefully constructed post, you have made one error (but if you disagree, do correct me). You write: “When JFK reached Trauma Room 1, it was clear to DR. Charles Carrico that JFK was not breathing.” And then you start your next sentence with the word “therefore.” That sentence reads: “Therefore Carrico attempted to insert an Endotracheal tube to ease his breathing.” When Carrico testified, he stated that JFK exhibited “agonal” breathing. He was then asked to define “agonal” and he gave the standard definition. Clearly, according to Carrico, JFK had “agonal” breathing, which is not the same as stating (as your post states) “that JFK was not breathing.” Again, all the data your are citing about chest damage –and specifically, damage to the right lung—is not disputable. (Certainly, I don’t disagree with any of it; and your post is a fine summary). Where my disagreement lies, is with the notion that one should use that data to connect that to a T-3 back injury (i.e., a bullet impact at T-3), since no one at Parkland reports any such wound on the back. Rest assured, I have read all that material carefully, and interviewed many of those witnesses. You might wish to re-examine Carrico’s deposition, when he talked about his thoughts when he first was shown the Bethesda autopsy (on 12/11). He noted that when he saw it, there were “facts” that he had not known of before. Under oath, Carrico made clear that one of the “facts” to which he was referring was the rear entry into JFK’s back (or shoulder or neck, depending on how one reads the data). DSL 10/26/15 - 8:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

I am curious as to why you "do not believe" the back wound was created post-mortem. I'm sure you are aware that no one at Dallas reported such a wound, in the records created that day (or in the testimony given in March 1964). But, in addition, we have the statement made by Perry, under oath. Perry said that when Humes called him (late that night or early the next day, it matters not which date), Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back. Why would Humes ask such a question, if he did not have a question about the legitimacy of the wound? Also, why --in the written autopsy report--were modifiers added, so that the typed version reads that the wound was "presumably of entry." My question: are you taking these factors into account, in stating that you "do not believe" the back wound was made post-mortem? DSL 10/26/15 - 3:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Bob & Sandy, I believe Mr. Lifton is stating that both "wounds", high and low, are "false". See above quote; "a higher (and equally false) wound". Hi Tom I see what you mean. I mistakenly assumed Mr. Lifton had stated the lower wound was genuine, but didn't match up with the throat wound, and had to be "moved" up to JFK's collar line. I'm afraid this is where I have to disagree with him. There is simply too much medical evidence from Parkland Hospital that points toward an injury to the right lung causing a tension pneumothorax in that lung, and an entrance wound at the level of the T3 vertebra (5.75" below the collar) is a perfect match for such an injury. The Parkland Hospital evidence of an injury to the right lung is. . . is what? Are you referring to Perry's request for a chest tube? Also, I have a serious problem with the argument that the circumstantial evidence of a pneumothorax is a "perfect match" for a T-3 rear injury; when: (a) no one saw any such T-3 injury at Parkland Hospital, in the reports and testimony written at the time (b ) Admiral Burkley (at Bethesda) referred to the T-3 wound as a wound that "occurred" in the back. As I posted elsewhere on this thread: just consider the implication of the verb "occurred". (To appreciate the absurdity of it: can you imagine any Bethesda doctor--even Humes--stating that a wound "occurred" in Kennedy's head? Just imagine the response if AP or UPI reported Kennedy's fatal head injury that way!). I'll take it one step further: Can you imagine a police report, about a homicide in any city, being written that way? That the deceased died of a fatal gunshot wound which "occurred" in his head? (Perhaps its the lateness of the hour here in West Los Angeles, but I can just imagine the dialogue in a police station where such language is used to report a homicide. Really: it belongs on Saturday Night Live. And if Admiral Burkley were still around, perhaps he could play the reporting police officer!) To recap: I think there is a serious logical problem of attempting to take the T-3 wound--which (in Burkley's report) "occurred" (a wound which no one reports at Parkland Hospital in the contemporary records), and that includes people who washed the body --and then combining that with the inference that, because a chest tube was called for, that justifies a connection between the internal chest injury and an impact at T-3. The undeniable fact is that the putative rear entry wound was not reported (that weekend) by any Parkland observor. The language used to describe the wound at Bethesda (that it "occurred") is fishy. The tension pneumothorax to which you are alluding was apparently not so serious (or obvious) that the chest tube --which was called for--was not pushed all the way in. In fact, according to the autopsy report, it didn't go further in than the epidermis. So, given the above factors, I do not agree with the notion that one can (or should) "connect the dots" as you do; or that such a nexus constitutes a "perfect match." Since its clear to me (at least) that JFK's body was intercepted and altered between Dallas and Bethesda, I think it is poor methodology to attempt to combine anything from Bethesda (i.e., post alteration) with data from Parkland (pre-alteration) to draw a reliable inference as to what was going on inside JFK's body. Anyway, that's where I stand on this issue. Always willing to change my mind, if there is evidence; but I call your attention again to what I wrote about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963, when reporter Bill Burrus received a call from "higher authority" (my quotes) to lay the groundwork for his story (the next day) that (based on his "authoritative"source) JFK was hit in the back--something not a single medical observer at Parkland Hospital reported on 11/22/63. Beware. This road is filled with logical and linguistic and anatomical potholes. DSL 10/26/15 - 5:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

But Robinson was the embalmer, right? So he should have seen both the lower back wound and the upper back wound. Right? Yes. Retrieve his (HSCA) interview with Andy Purdy--not only the HSCA transcript, but the audio. As I recall, he is asked about seeing any wound on the back (above the waist, and below the head) and he denies it. As I recall, Purdy seemed taken aback by his answer, and asked the question a second time. Check it out. DSL 10/26/15 -5 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0 Thanks for answering my question, Pat. So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further. But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound. Yeah, that makes sense. Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT. Pat: What is this talk about being “desperate” to claim that the autopsy photos are fake? Is that “desperate” as in “desperate housewives”? As I recall, you have posted on the net (and perhaps stated in your on-line book) that your entire approach –your explicitly stated approach—has been to prove that there could have been a conspiracy, but without the evidence having been falsified. May I observe that you are subject to the charge that you are trying to have a platonic affair with conspiracy? When you appear in Dallas, will you be telling your audience that you believe there was a plot; but the WC’s conclusions are all the result of misunderstanding and innocent error, and nobody attempted to change what lawyers often call the “medical facts” in this case? DSL 10/26/15 – 345 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0 Thanks for answering my question, Pat. So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further. But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound. Yeah, that makes sense. Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT. DUPLICATE. . SORRY.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me...Let me re-state my position and question: Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland. Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice? The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities. Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound. Tom Tom: Here's something I think we should all be aware of: The FBI report written by Sibert and O'Neill places the wound "below" the shoulders. The autopsy report written by Humes places the wound "above the scapula" (the shoulder blade). IMHO: It is not possible for Humes to make a mistake and say that a wound was "above" the shoulder blade, if it was "below"; similarly, it is highly unlikely (bordering on the impossible) for the two FBI agents to describe it as "below' the shoulders, if it was in fact "above." So clearly, we are dealing with two separate locations. Again: once one accepts that as a fact, then clearly we are dealing with two separate wounds. At that point, we are entering the world of fabrication and forgery--and while it would be nice to know all the details, it is a sticky wicket. The clothing holes, for example, pose a puzzle, but (to me) they are not definitive. Because if the wound(s) on the body are fake, then (of course) there is plenty of reason for the person(s) creating the clothing holes to not get it perfectly "right." (Bottom line: I wouldn't look to the clothing holes for a definitive and accurate location of either body wound). ADMIRAL BURKLEY'S REPORT Now changing the subject a bit. . . : I am open to any reasonable discussion of Admiral Burkley's report, which places "the" wound at T-3, but notice the sentence he writes; as I recall, he says that the wound (or "another" wound--the antecedent of the word "another" being the head wound) . . he says that "another" wound "occurred" (yes "occurred" ! ) at T-3. I would be interested if those of you who are putting in serious time examining this issue would go back to Admiral Burkley's report, and offer your opinions--as the case may be--as to why Admiral Burkley used the verb "occurred." Since when does a wound "occur" on someone's body. (Is this like "spontaneous combustion"? ) My belief: Burkley knows darn well that the T-3 wound is fake, and is using that verb for the purposes of CYA. Remember: nobody could really be sure that this whole thing wouldn't bust wide open. And his choice of verb may have been a defense against a future perjury indictment (or worse). CHANGING THE FOCUS BACK TO HUMES. . (and my two conversations with him in early November, 1966) When I called Humes in early November, and told him that Prof. Liebeler had written a memo calling for a re-examination of this whole affair, and asked him what he would say if questioned (this is about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"), Humes was clearly rattled. He blurted out (again, I'm writing from memory): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I wrote a report, gave sworn testimony, and that is the end of it!" (emphasis on the word "the end" of it). I then complimented him on the fact that it was very "precise" testimony, to which he replied, softly, "thankyou". And then, playing the Columbo part, I said: "Of course, sir, if someone had extracted a bullet before the body reached you, that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything sinister about it (yeah, sure!!), but it certainly never came to the attention of the Warren Commission, and it ought to have." Interrupting, and in a soft voice, Humes then said, "I'll say it ought to have". "What's that?" I said. and/or. . "And if you had known about such a thing, you would have told the Commission?" "I would certainly think I would have". (or "I would certainly hope I would!" That's when I started to say something, to continue the conversation, but, within a fraction of a second, I could hear that Humes was continuing to talk, so I just shut up, real fast, and my recorder caught what Humes said next, in a raised voice,and with considerable angst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done. . . (pause) . . and when. . (pause). . .and where! (pause)." I then said something like: "Well, that's what I thought, too" (just to make converasation); and then Humes cut in: "I don't mean to ridicule your hypothesis, my friend, but I'd pick something else to be concerned about." Again, I tried to defuse the conversation, and he said something like: "I think you should just read our testimony, and take it as coming from someone competent to observe" (something like that). And when I made some followup statement, he got a slightly bit sarcastic, and said: "Lots of luck, is all I can tell you. It'll take you the rest of your life!" Please note: that conversation took place in early November, 1966, when I had just turned 27. Now I am 76. So even if Humes was falsifying the facts when he made various other observations, I must admit that he was reasonably accurate, when he made that statement. (Just joking!) * * * And by the way. . . : there have been two quite different reactions to my tape of that conversation. When I played it in 1993, at the MidWest Symposium, the (then) head of the New England Journal of Medicine, George (whats his name) tried to poo poo it. "Oh, Humes was just tryng to get rid of you, on the phone!" etc But i know of other students of the case who were just as interested in his responses--indeed, who "heard it as I did" and who were just as electrified by Humes' responses as I was, when I first had this conversation "in real time." If my interpretation is (i.e., was) correct,then I nailed it perfectly. (See B.E. for my interpretation of Humes pysche, see the setion of B.E. titled "The Peculiar Testimony of Commander Humes" ). If my interpretation is correct, Humes was a perjurer who walked a very fine line, delivering technically accurate information which concealed, rather than revealed, the full truth. There were a number of JFK researchers --at that conference--who just couldn't deal with that, because if my interpretation was correct, their theories go out the window, the body was indeed altered, and Humes (of course) knew that. All too well. As I wrote in Best Evidence, what was he supposed to do: Call the Maryland State Police? DSL 10/26/15 - 3:15 AM PDT

In her WC testimony, when Bowron was asked if she saw any other wound besides the head wound and she said no, they were talking about when she first saw JFK in the car. If they were talking about what she saw later, she certainly would have at least said she saw the throat wound. Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. Nurse Henchcliffe's WC testimony may be more instructive. She said that she saw a head wound and a throat wound. One would think that when she helped clean up the body, she would have noticed a back wound or heard Bowron or the orderly mention it if either one of them saw it. Ron: THanks for posting this. Years ago, I used to know those lines by heart. Something else: if you will look up Robinson's taped testimony before the HSCA (by Andrew Purdy) I am pretty sure you will find a Q and A where Purdy asks him if he saw any wound above the waist and below the head, and Robinson answers in the negative. Purdy --as I recall--then asked the question again; and again, the answer was "no". This testimony, as I recall, suggested that at the time Robinson made this observation (or these observations) there was no back wound on the body. Again, look it up, and you can actually check the tape which--years ago--I did. DSL 10/26/15 - 2:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low? The purpose of the back wound was to create the visual appearance that Kennedy was shot from the rear. IMHO--and as developed in Best Evidence--the shallow wound was to be "matched" to a bullet panted on a Dallas stretcher. Remember: when the back wound was created, it is very likely that the conspirators did not now the tracheotomy wound was anything more than a trach incision. I think the "trouble" started when it was realized that the throat defect was not just the site of a trach incision, but a bullet wound. That's when the real problem began: what the heck happened to the bullet that entered at the throat? It had to be located and extracted. Under no circumstances could it be permitted to enter the official "evidence stream" and go to the FBI Lab. I believe it was extracted and that is what accounts for the original FBI "receipt for a misle" (sic). Then some sleight of hand was performed and two tiny fragments from the brain were substituted. The actual missile has disappeared. Now back to the back wound(s). All of this gets somewhat hypothetical. The bottom line is that the wound was placed "too low" and that led to the creation (at Bethesda, I believe) of a "higher" wound, and the necessity to hide the "lower" one via the adroit placement of the ruler to during autopsy photography. This is one line of speculation. But the bottom line is this: the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. DSL 10/24/15 1:50 A.M PST Ballistically speaking, what kind of bullet do you think could enter JFK's throat and either a) not exit the back of his neck or not totally destroy the vertebrae in line with the path of this bullet? I think that's a good question, and I'll leave the answer to those who know more about ballistics than I. But I suspect that those who planned this affair used some kind of special soft-nosed bullets that would not travel very far and remain in the body. In making this statement, I am well aware that whatever struck the head was apparently a different kind of ammunition, because it certainly blasted out a hole at the rear--and , to some observers (anyway), actually caused an explosion. DSL

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy. By all means, please do. Two questions, please:1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds? 2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'? Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"! Tom Tom (et al): I wrote a detailed response, but it somehow disappeared in cyber space. Here goes again: Re Question 1: I believe that Humes and Boswell were both aware of the situation re the back wound(s). They were co-equals and knew the same truth, whatever that truth was. I am not sure exactly when these two wounds were created. If you examine the HSCA tape of Robinson (from Gawlers) he actually states that there was no wound above the waist and beneath the head. Re Question 2: I Regarding the throat wound: I do not believe that the wound was altered at Bethesda. Quite to the contrary, Kennedy's body arrived with that wound already enlarged. I am convinced of that based on my detailed interview of O'Connor when I first contacted him in August 1979, and in later interviews as well. Specifically in response to question #2: I have specific evidence that the throat wound was sutured after the 6:35 p.m. arrival of the body and before the 7:17 arrival of the FBI agents. I don't know who did the actual suturing; I am quite sure that both Humes and Boswell were quite aware that it was done. My best guess: it was one of Humes' superiors (e.g., Admiral Galloway) DSL 10/25/15 - 1:57 a.m. PDT

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low? The purpose of the back wound was to create the visual appearance that Kennedy was shot from the rear. IMHO--and as developed in Best Evidence--the shallow wound was to be "matched" to a bullet planted on a Dallas stretcher. Remember: when the back wound was created, it is very likely that the conspirators did not now the tracheotomy wound was anything more than a trach incision. I think the "trouble" started when it was realized that the throat defect was not just the site of a trach incision, but a bullet wound. That's when the real problem began: what the heck happened to the bullet that entered at the throat? It had to be located and extracted. Under no circumstances could it be permitted to enter the official "evidence stream" and go to the FBI Lab. I believe it was extracted and that is what accounts for the original FBI "receipt for a misle" (sic). Then some sleight of hand was performed and two tiny fragments from the brain were substituted. The actual missile has disappeared. Now back to the back wound(s). All of this gets somewhat hypothetical. The bottom line is that the wound was placed "too low" and that led to the creation (at Bethesda, I believe) of a "higher" wound, and the necessity to hide the "lower" one via the adroit placement of the ruler to during autopsy photography. This is one line of speculation. But the bottom line is this: the ruler doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. DSL 10/24/15 1:50 A.M PST

In a written statement to Livingstone (Killing the Truth, pp. 181-184), nurse Diana Bowron said that she saw the back wound when she, nurse Henchcliffe, and a black orderly were preparing the body for the coffin. She also said that she saw no other back wounds and that she believes the back of the head photo is not of JFK. Ron (and everyone else, too): Diana Bowron was asked twice --twice!--under oath whether she observed a back wound. The answer: No. The late Harrison Livingstone came along (circa 1991, I think) with his completely screwy approach to witnesses (totally amateurish, and leading questions) and --somehow--got Bowron to make the statement(s) that she did. Unfortunately, we do not know the backstory--we don't know how Livingstone found her, where she lives, when he first called her, etc. Most important, there was no cross examination of Bowron. So Bowron, 30 years after she said "no" twice--under oath--says something different in a letter to Livingstone. If you know about the way Livingstone "berated" witnesses, and actually "argued with them," this statement by Bowron lacks credibiility. Again, that's my opinion. I regret that Kent Carroll, who edited this atrocious work (which was largely an attack on me personally) did not ask Livingstone for a full and complete account of how he came by this story with this "new evidence." One other thing: you have to go to the original account ---in the Dallas Times Herald (and written by reporter Bill Burrus--that Kennedy was hit in the back. This occurred in the December 12, 1963 edition, and was the result of a series of phone calls made to Burrus on the night of 12/11. See my post titled "Phil Shenon's Castro-Did-It Theory--Anesthesia for the Mind." Burrus was recruited to write that story; my post gives a synopsis of what happened on the night of December 11. DSL 10/25/15 - 1:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Thanks for taking time to answer my question Robert. I think I got the gist of what you were saying, but it was complicated by the mixing of multiple wounds. What I'd like to do is write a simple step-by-step list of what I think happened regarding the back wound, and then ask you (or anybody else who's willing and able) to show me where I'm messed up. Okay, here's what appears to have happened: JFK gets shot in the back, 5 inches below the collar. Humes wants to connect the back wound to the throat wound, since that would explain both. He does so by raising the back wound to 3 inches below the collar That takes care of both wounds and no bullets need be accounted for. WC is formed. WC determines that only two bullets could have hit JFK. So Specter invents SBT and Ford raises the back wound from 5 inches below the collar to 3 inches below the collar to make the theory work. Pre-WC, the autopsy already stated that the bullet entered the (high) back wound and exited the throat wound. The only thing Specter did with his SBT is state the the bullet went on to hit Connally. Right:? Right. (Okay, I can see right now that part of my confusion was that I thought that part of the SBT theory was the back-wound to throat-would path. It isn't.) BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above). Sorry, but I must butt in here: JFK was NOT shot in the back. (That's the whole point). There is not a single Dallas doctor or nurse's account of JFK having a back wound The strongest evidence proponents have for a "back" wound are the clothing holes. But the true implication --imho-is that if the back wound(s) is/are false, then the clothing was punctured after-the-fact, by the same person (or persons) involved in this general scheme. I believe that the clothing hole/body hole "mismatch"-to the extent that there is one--is further evidence that both are false. One other comment: Humes (almost certainly) is not the architect of any of this. He simply "follows orders" when presented with this mess. DSL

As it turns out, it looks like Doug Horne misspoke when he said that James Jenkins could see Hume's little finger push on the pleural membrane. Here is what Jenkins said in an early interview (his first, I think) with David Lifton. From Best Evidence: [Jenkins] remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that.... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me [it was] very shallow. .... I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe.... through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]. .... You could actually see where it [the probe] was making an indentation.... where it was pushing the skin up. .... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... no way that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity. This resolves (to my satisfaction) a number of problematic things. First, it means that there is no reason to believe that Humes probed deeply with his finger, and so the question of how his finger could possibly fit becomes a non-issue. Second, if the official size of the wound (4 mm by 7 mm) is correct or near that, Humes could not have probed very deeply at all, and yet was able to hit bottom. Which means the wound was very shallow indeed. This could be a important clue as to what exactly made the wound. Third, apparently Humes did indeed probe the pleural membrane with a probe, just as he (and at least one other autopsy physician) had testified. This gives me more confidence in Jenkins as a witness. Sandy: This is a very interesting (and important) thread. As you probably know from reading Best Evidence, I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made; but certainly not by shooting a gun at the corpse of JFK). But in this post (that I am now writing), let me focus on just one point: the question of Humes "probing" the back wound with his finger. If you look at the Clark Panel Report (1968, released in Jan 1969), you will see that they write that it was obvious (based on their examination of the autopsy photos) that the rear entry (let's call it "the back wound" for the sake of this post) could not permit the "insertion" of a finger. Yet we know that credible witnesses saw Humes insert (at least part of the way) his finger. They did not imagine that; they witnessed it. So. . . : How to explain that situation? i.e., that "contradiction" What I believe to be the answer: I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--which I obtained in December 1982 and published (for the first time) in the Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). You will note the existence of a ruler (which doesn't measure anything) and which covers the location where the back wound (as reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill) was located. This situation of the placement of that ruler is discussed in Chapter 30 of B.E. --under the breaker "The Puzzle of the Ruler." ( Its my belief that the "back wound" (which the two agents are referring to) is concealed by that ruler. I also call your attention to the fact that in their FBI report, the two FBI agents refer to that "lower" back wound (my quotes on the word "lower") as an "opening" in the back. So here's the bottom line: there was (I believe) a "lower" back wound, which was indeed probed by Humes with his finger. That "lower" wound was indeed on the body. I do not know how deeply Humes finger went in; and that's not the point. My point is that later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound. A ruler was used to conceal the lower wound--i.e., to conceal it from posterity. The result: there are witnesses (e.g., the two FBI agents) who actually saw Humes probe the "lower" wound; but the wound that is present in the autopsy photographs (which show the ruler) show a "higher" wound, and that higher wound is definitely too small "to permit the insertion of a finger" (just as reported by the Clark Panel). Humes - - How Complicit? If true, does this mean that Humes was directly involved in autopsy chicanery? (Yes, unfortunately it does). I write "unfortunately" because when I wrote Best Evidence, back in the mid-to-late 1970's, I had a more innocent view of Humes. But I'll be writing more about that in Final Charade. But now back to another (and very important) point: Is there anyway to definitively prove this? Yes, but its never going to happen--at least not in my lifetime. But I predict that if an exhumation is ever conducted, there will be discovered a "wound" or "opening" beneath the ruler. All of this goes to the larger question of whether the Bethesda autopsy was a fraud. Was it a fraud? (Or a "perfect medical forgery", which fooled the autopsy doctors?). My answer to that has changed, over time. So let me repeat the question: was it a fraud? My answer (today): yes, it was. Let's restate this somewhat: Was Humes merely confused, or a "useful idiot" in following some higher authorities "orders" in a scheme to re-arrange (or fabricate) certain medical facts? My answer (today): Yes, I believe Humes was complicit ( but I did not believe that when I wrote Best Evidence). AN IMPORTANT QUALIFIER: Humes did not do the "surgery of the head area" However--and this is an important qualifier--I do NOT believe that Humes was responsible for the enlargement of the head wound. In other words, I do not believe that Humes was responsible for creating what he himself described as "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." That FBI statement was based on what the FBI agents heard Humes say aloud (See Chapter 12 of B.E., for a detailed discussion of this point). (Nor do I believe that the Boswell diagram showing that huge hole, along with the measurements --10 x 17--is a "con job". This is where I diverge (completely) from Doug Horne's beliefs. He believes that Humes did the surgery and then Boswell acted to conceal Humes complicity by creating a bogus diagram. I don't believe any of that. Instead. . . I believe the account of Paul O'Connor --as told to the HSCA--that the body arrived with an empty cranium and a huge hole in the head. (FYI: O'Connor not only told that to the HSCA in August 1977; he told it to the Florida newspapers, at around that time.) So O'Connor is "on the record" with regard to all of this in four locations: 1. 1977: The Florida newspapers 2. Aug 1977, the HSCA (Purdy's report) 3. Aug 1979, my original telephone interview (as set forth verbatim in Chapter 26 of B.E.) 4. October 1980: My original filmed interview (as set forth in the Best Evidence Research Video. Now available on the Internet). And there are three more instances of Paul O'Connor going through all of this: 5. October 1988 - filmed interview with KRON-TV (Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase, arranged by me) 6.. Spring 1989 - my very lengthy and detailed follow-up filmed interview with O'Connor at his home (not yet released) 7.. 1990 - Still another lengthy interview --conducted by me--with O'Connor when he was flown to California for the show HARDCOPY STILL ANOTHER IMPORTANT WITNESS: "Wayne". . . For those interested in this point (re the empty cranium), I have a witness (who you'll be reading about in Final Charade) who was close with FBI Agent O'Neill; a businessman who was a strong supporter of my work, and who lived in his area, and was a financial supporter. Before O'Neill--who was rather thick-headed and totally pro-Hoover--realized the significance of what he was saying, he repeatedly maintained (this is back in 1992) to this businessman, whose first name was Wayne: "Wayne, there was not brain." He said this repeatedly, and with great emphasis on the word "was". I provided Gunn and Horne with this information. It was never properly followed up. Bottom line: O'Neill (before he modified his story) corroborated O'Connor: the body did indeed arrive with "an empty cranium." If that is so, of course that makes Humes (and Boswell) complicit in autopsy fraud. And so their shenanigans with a ruler, during the autopsy photography, pale in comparison with their failure to tell the truth about the condition of the body, when it arrived. As you all may know, I spoke with Humes twice in November 1966; this is all laid out in Best Evidence in Chapter 8 (and repeated in Chapter 18). As Humes burst out at me, when I confronted him with the Sibert and O'Neill report, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where." This tape was played aloud at the mid-West Convention in 1993. I am going to make it available on the internet, soon. Humes knew the body was altered. Almost certainly, he was given the "World War III" cover story, and so he ended up participating in this fraud. What he said about the body in front of the FBI agents (that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skul") is one aspect of this fraud. What he did with the ruler is still another. Humes did not appear before the WC with "clean hands." I thought he did when I wrote B.E.; I no longer believe that. But still, his data --when properly analyzed and interpreted--is invaluable. DSL 10/23/15 - 5:55 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

"Scholar"?? Oh pleez. . . The title is rather obscure, and misleading. The "scholar" is Fetzer --who doesn't think we went to the moon, that 9/11 was a US Government Plot, etc. Fetzer now pushes the line that Israel was behind JFK's assassination. More total nonsense from Fetzer, has (btw) firmly established himself as a Holocaust denier. FYI: Fetzer has written the detailed and highly laudatory introduction for the recently published book by Nick Kollerstrom, the London professor (former professor, he was fired) for pushing the thesis that there were no gas chambers at Auchwitz. Fetzer argues the same, and that Zyklon B was used simply to clean up the individuals in the chambers, not to kill them. (On a radio show a year or so ago, he had a guest who said there were swimming pools at Auchwitz). If you want to waste your limited time on this earth, go spend it debating Fetzer and his buddy Kevin Barrett. My advice: ignore him completely. DSL

Martin: please email me at dsl74@cornell.edu Thank you. DSL

I Led 3 Lives was first aired in late September 1953 (when Oswald was in the last months of his roughly 18 months in New York City). It became the number 1 (or #2) show in America, alongside such classics as Highway Patrol and Mr. District Attorney. There were 117 episodes in all, and the show ran for three consecutive (television) seasons –i.e., from September through June each year. LHO moved to New Orleans in January 1954. Marguerite said that she (and Lee) watched the show together every week. (See her testimony; also her statements on file with her papers at a Texas library). I verified that the show was on one of the local New Orleans TV stations. The last show (of the 117 show sequence) aired in late June 1956 (so the three seasons it was broadcast were: 53/54, 54/55, and 55/56). Some of the shows are now available on YouTube. Robert Oswald knew all about I Led 3 Lives, and Lee’s intense interest in that show, but did not volunteer any of his knowledge to the FBI or to the Warren Commission. In other words, he watched as his brother was, in effect "hung out to dry", without saying a word about his interest in this program. The first time he mentioned it was in his book LEE (published by Coward-McCann in 1967). Years ago (in the early 1990s, and before the advent of the modern Internet) I researched this area thoroughly. FYI: The rights to the show at the time (and perhaps now, too) were owned by Ted Turner. I traveled to a distant location, and made arrangements to watch copies of as many of the shows as I wished. (I watched about half of them). I also obtained copies of all 117 scripts; plus much other material relevant to the production of the shows. Bottom line: The most significant thing about Oswald’s interest in I Led 3 Lives is that his hero (or even role model) was a fake communist, an undercover agent for the FBI. This alone makes a mockery of the sophomoric thesis (promoted by Jean Davison, and other true believers of the official version) that Lee Oswald was a genuine Marxist, in part because (a) he behaved like one and ( b ) he stated (on a number of occasions): “I am a Marxist.” As I stated in another post on the London Forum (“Phil Shenon’s “Castro-did-it” theory—Anesthesia for the Mind”, which I posted about a day ago), Oswald was a counterfeit Marxist; and this behavior (and possible early affiliation with an intelligence agency) go back to a fairly early age. I’ll have a lot more to say about all of this in Final Charade. DSL 10/11/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

What follows is a post that I made yesterday to a private email chain (and in response to Shenon's recent article on POLITICO): Post to Paul Hoch group – 10/8/15: This round of posts (concerning Phil Shenon’s recent article in POLITICO [10/6/15]) causes me to recall an encounter I had with Shenon in November 2013 in Toronto, Canada. I had been flown to Toronto, to be on a Canadian Broadcasting Company program. The producer telephoned me at the Intercontinental Hotel to say that Philip Shenon was in town, and wanted to meet me. Time was limited, so I should go down to the lobby. We only had a few minutes. A few minutes later, Shenon appeared, with the CBC producer (who stepped aside so we could have our privacy). We shook hands. And it was clear we only had a few minutes, so I got right to the point. “I hope you realize” I said, that the proper interpretation of the events in Mexico City are a function of whether the autopsy on Kennedy’s body is valid; and specifically, on the validity of the medical and ballistic evidence. “If the autopsy is a fraud, then there’s no valid connection between Oswald’s rifle and the crime; its all manufactured; and everything he is doing in Mexico City is simply role-playing, and he was under the guidance of a handler.” I may have added (to Shenon) my belief that Oswald’s behavior in Mexico City was no more valid than the statements he made at the time of his October 1959 defection in Moscow; and were in fact an extension of (and elaboration of) the same “legend.” The defection was phony; and the Mexico City behavior was the same; i.e., just as contrived. Oswald was a counterfeit Marxist. (I made clear that this was my opinion; and would be buttressed in my own book.). “So you’re saying that the entire thesis of my book is wrong?” he said, somewhat incredulously; and looking right at me. “Yes,” I replied, looking just as steadily at him: “You’re entire thesis is wrong.” So: We just looked at each other. I was dead serious. I believe the time has come to call a spade a spade. Have we really reached the point where someone is a Marxist because he says “I am a Marxist”? Perhaps that’s what they teach at the Jean Davison school of Foreign Affairs, but (unfortunately) we’re living in the world of James Angleton. So, we just looked at each other, shook hands, and said our goodbyes. Shenon left for his schedule, and I went to the restaurant of the Intercontinental, where I ate a wonderful breakfast at CBC’s expense. I don’t think much else was said—or needed to be said. My making these statements was not a substitute for evidence that they were true, but I would really like to understand how its possible for an (ex) New York Times reporter to write a book at which Oswald’s behavior is taken at face value in 2013 (or worse, in 2015); especially in view of the massive amount of evidence that the autopsy in this case is unreliable at least, and a fraud at most. Where bullets fall off stretchers. Where the President’s body--which left Dallas in an expensive viewing casket—arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital six hours later in a body bag, inside a shipping casket. Where (based on documentary evidence) there were three entries of two caskets at Bethesda., which is at the heart of the deception (See Chapter 25 of Best Evidence [1981], which is recycled and amplified in Doug Horne's 5 Volume work, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board [2009]). Where prior versions of autopsy are burned; and in fact where we now know, from the pioneering work of the ARRB that the autopsy is—at best— a third version. Not the original (which was burned); not the second (the original of which went to Robert Kennedy). But the third! And what about the fact that the coffin offloaded from Air Force One on its arrival at Andrews (at 6 p.m. EST) and placed in the waiting naval ambulance--an event nationally televised--was empty? And that the President's body was delivered to Bethesda--in the body bag--a good 20 minutes prior to the 6:55 p.m. arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda? Does it take an advance degree in logic of math to understand the relationship between the false version of medical facts in this case (i.e., the forensic "story" told by the body of the deceased, in this case, the body of JFK) and the false and contrived behavior of Oswald? That this is a contrived "intersection"? This is not exactly rocket science. Those who subscribe to this oversimplified version of history based on the false autopsy (published in the Warren Report) and the contrived behavior of Oswald (his antics in New Orleans, in August of 1963) are promoting myth as history. 12/12/63 - THE FIRST PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE “FINAL” BETHESDA AUTOPSY FINDINGS The final version of the autopsy was finally sent to the Commission on December 20th, 1963 [CD 77, or CE 387]; but the original (and authoritative) news leak of the “final version” was provided to Dallas Times-Herald reporter Bill Burrus and published in the Times-Herald on December 12, 1963. Page one. Check it out. That article constituted the first authoritative statement that Kennedy was shot from behind, based on the not-yet-released Bethesda autopsy report. Further, that the wound at the front of the throat was an exit, not an entrance. In 1978, I hunted down Burrus, and had a multi-hour in-person tape recorded meeting with him in New York City . Burrus revealed for the first time how he got to publish that story, which he falsely datelined “Bethesda, Maryland” in order to protect a source. (See Chapter 7, Best Evidence). Burrus described to me the multiple telephone calls he had with higher authority on the night of December 11 [1963], who first told him how to write his story that a bullet transited—undamaged from the back of Kennedy, entering through a wound “above the shoulder blade” and exiting at the front of JFKs neck, i.e., via the wound described by Dr. Perry (and others) as an entry. Unknown to Burrus, he was writing about the first segment of the Single Bullet Trajectory. But that’s just one aspect of a complex false façade, and a major strategic deception that ultimately led to the Single Bullet Theory, which appeared—full blown—in the Warren Report (Sept 1964). A post on a discussion group is not the place to elaborate on this thesis, but have we really reached the point where everything is to be taken at face value, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for (WC attorney) David Slawson, who finally, age 83, has decided to state that well yes, there was a conspiracy, but he still thinks that Oswald was a (or “the”) shooter? (Really. . .in 2015? And despite all the evidence of falsification and fraud?). The false story that Castro was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination does not (merely) originate with some sentences and some paragraphs in a CIA file; it starts with the way events unfolded on November 22, 1963. It starts with the falsification of the Bethesda autopsy to create the appearance that all the shots came from “above and behind” (i.e., from a "sniper's nest" found at the Texas School Book Depository) and that a counterfeit Marxist—who presented himself as pro-Castro and who made phony and provocative statements against Kennedy’s life in Mexico City some eight weeks earlier—was responsible for his assassination. In writing this post, I am reporting my views, and my experiences, for what they are worth. I’ll have much more to say on all this in Final Charade. Stay tuned. DSL 10/11/15 - 4 A.M. PDT Los Angeles, California

Hubert Clark's account of the "decoy" (naval) ambulance appears in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence.

James: I know that many years have passed, but still. . on the assumption that you are still reading these boards. . . : Did you ever find any more info on Sgt Dugger? (or. . on the Margie Barnes situation?) if so, please do forward to me at dsl74@cornell.edu Many thanks. DSL

With all due respect for David I think JFK was likely done in by an on-going crew whose occupation was heroin-trade assassinations. The crew prospered (in all likelihood). Let the CIA and the military and the Mob and the anti-Castro Cubans take the blame. Just because the operation may have involved guys with those backgrounds doesn't mean it was an institutional affair. I'm suggesting it was Averell Harriman at Foggy Bottom with Paul Helliwell's drug crew cat's paw. This is not my line -- wish it was but I can't remember the author right now -- "It isn't like the JFK assassination was the worst thing they did." Who occupied the highest level of civilian power in DC the afternoon of 11/22/63? Bobby Kennedy? Nope, spent the day at home making phone calls. Robert McNamara? Nope, the military never bothered to inform the Secretary of Defense the Commander in Chief had been killed, and McNamara spent the day inactive. The rest of the top Cabinet people were in the air. The State Department is first-among-equals in Presidential succession. The #2 and #3 guys at State were in charge. George Ball and W. Averell Harriman. Nothing was left to chance. Most likely. No, that is incorrect. The "highest level" --as it turns out--was Sec Def McNamara. He delegated authority to a top assistant to corral all the Oswald files; and he, himself, handled the arrival of AF-1 and the body and the car. Most importantly, McNamara issued orders that when AF-1 landed, no one else from the military would be permitted at Andrews, except for General Wehle and the honor guard. McNamara was definitely not at home making phone calls. He was at Andrews, giving orders, and supervising the return of AF-1. (I'll have much more to say about all of this in Final Charade). DSL 9/29/15 - 12:10 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California