David Lifton

Don: Thanks much for posting this article. Very interesting. I don't remember whether Curtis wrote a report (did he?). Anyway he was sure there, and this article is useful. DSL 11/24/13; 7 AM PST Los Angeles, California

I'm somewhat confused by Wecht's TV interview on WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh. Dr. Wecht says that "The President was shot three times--once, striking him in the back." Putting aside the problems associated with arguing that two shots struck the head (the first, from the right front, and then a second one, from the rear). . putting all that aside, Dr. Wecht asserts that the first shot (as quote above) struck President Kennedy "in the back." Now lets return to the full quote, from the WTAE-TV interview: "The President was shot three times--once, striking him in the back, and exiting from the front of his neck. Yeah, that's the shot you see when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his hands come up in this kind of defensive posture." So, as Dr. Wecht makes clear later in this TV interview, he (apparently) believes that the wound at the front of the throat is an exit wound (although he notes that one of the presenters at the conference believed it to be an entrance wound (which, by the way, is my belief, too)--and Dr. Wecht himself points to a conversation he had with someone who knew Perry, back in 1986, and who says that Perry believed then--and always believed--that the throat wound was an entrance. All very well, but. . .But putting all that aside: If Dr. Wecht believes that a bullet transited Kennedy's body from back to front--entering "in the back" (as Dr. Wecht said in this WTAE interview) and then exiting at the front of the throat, then here's my question: Where did that bullet go? What happened to it? I really hate to sound like the late Arlen Specter, but aren't we then approaching the logic of the "Single Bullet Trajectory"? The single bullet theory logic works like this. If the bullet from this back-to-front trajectory (which Dr. Wecht cites as his belief, in this WTAE-TV interview) exited via the wound at the front of the throat (which he profeses to subscribe to), then are we not back at the Single Bullet Theory? Yet Dr. Wecht is well known for his oppositioin to that theory All very well. Then, if the bullet from Dr. Wecht's back-to-front trajectory (which he himself said entered "in the back") somehow existed at the throat (traveling upwards?) and did not strike Connally, then is it not then the case that Dr. Wecht is now arguing (at least implicitly) that Connally was struck by a separate bullet? Is that what he believes? - - 3 shots for Kennedy, and one for Connally? But (in this interview at least) Dr. Wecht doesn't say that. After he asserts his believe that the first bullet hit President Kennedy "striking him in the back," he goes on to assert that that missile exited via the wound at the front of the throat ("when he merges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his hands come up in this kind of defensive posture") and then he adds, by way of completing the assassination sequence: "Then, (as in "after that"), we're talking about the two head shots that follow shortly thereafter." All very well. . . but what happened to Connally? In narrating this sequence, Dr. Wecht has apparently omitted Connally. So here are (some of) my quesitons: What does Dr. Wecht believe happened to the bullet that entered Kennedy's back? Where did it go? What about Connally? (What bullet struck him??) I'd like some clarification on these points, if someone knows the answer. In posing these questions, I'm not asking "what happened in Dealey Plaza?", but rather, "What does Wecht think happened i n Dealey Plaza?" I find it difficult to believe he now accepts the Single Bullet Theory, so what bullet, in his sequence, hit Connally? And, if the bullet that he says struck Kennedy "in the back" did not exit, and if he (possibly) believes that a bullet struck Kennedy in the throat from the front, then what happened to those TWO bullets--the one from the back, and the one from the front? Thank you. DSL 10/20/13; 10:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Neither of these are "live links" on my screen. Any suggestion as to how to fix that situation? DSL

I, too, was disgusted to read this guy's statement(s) that JFK "launched" the United States into the Vietnam War. He doesn't know what he is talking about. As John Newman and I discussed this matter years ago--when John was writing his book--JFK's problem was to disguise a withdrawal; LBJ's, to disguise an escalation. With so many documents now available about JFK's withdrawal plan, one wonders what someone like this is thinking--assuming he does any "thinking"--when he writes as he does. DSL

You're right Richard. I just corrected that. That's what happens when you've been studying the JFK case too long. . its like living in a time warp. And, it was getting late. . and I was tired. . etc. DSL

It would appear, from this morning's Washington Post (1/25/13) that Snowden is in fact going to stay in Russia. He is going to be allowed to stay only in certain areas approved by the authorities. I would like to know what is going to become of the laptaps (and thumb drives) that he apparently has in his possession--and whether the Russians are going to image all of his disks (if they have not already done so). Meanwhile, the poll numbers have been changing markedly--and for the worse (for him). This is going to be very interesting. DSL 1/25/13; 5:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Today's Washington Post has an article by reporter Kathy Lally discussing Edward Snowden's situation, in Moscow--in the context of other ex-defectors (notably, LHO). Personally, I think the comparison is absurd, but that's just my opinion. FWIW (and my advice to Snowden): If you do return to the U.S., make sure you don't take any jobs on any possible presidential parade route. (With Mapquest, you should be able to research this matter in advance of accepting employment.) OTOH: if you decide to remain in Russia, you might continue your education (as Oswald considered doing) at Moscow's Patrice Lumumba University, or use the Internet to take the wonderful courses in math and physics now available from MIT and other universities. Anyway, and for those interested, here's the link to the Washington Post story (and someone ought to inform this reporter as to why its really ludicrous to compare Edward Snowden with Lee Oswald). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/us-asylum-seekers-unhappy-in-russia/2013/07/18/ced32748-eee8-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html?hpid=z11 Here's the text: MOSCOW — If Edward Snowden has time on his hands, stuck as he is in Sheremetyevo Aiport’s transit zone, he might want to seize the opportunity to read up on the history of American asylum-seekers in Russia. Those who have — such as Washington journalist and author Peter Savodnik — come up with a litany of disenchantment, which could prove meaningful for Snowden. The former National Security Agency contractor applied for temporary asylum here earlier this week. “If history is any indication,” Savodnik said in a telephone interview, “he can expect purgatory on Earth if he stays in Russia. They’ll send him to a remote place, with no real society or life, somewhere far away from Moscow.” The past reveals a rogue’s gallery of failed romantics who thought they would find a better world here. Most met unhappy ends. Take Big Bill Haywood, who, like Snowden, was charged under the federal Espionage Act of 1917. Haywood, a radical labor leader, was found guilty of violating the act after calling a strike in 1918 during wartime. He served about a year in prison and, while out on appeal, decamped to Moscow. Haywood married a Russian but never learned the language — the couple talked by hand gestures. Eventually, he said he wanted to return home, but in 1928, at the age of 59, he died of alcoholism and diabetes. Half of his ashes were buried along the Kremlin wall and the other half were sent to Chicago, where he had helped found the Industrial Workers of the World. Savodnik has a book coming out in November, “The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union,” about the most notorious U.S. defector, who went off to Moscow in 1959 with misplaced hopes of a glorious life in the worker’s paradise of the then-Soviet Union. He was given work in an electronics factory in dreary Minsk, where the bright future eluded him. He returned home in 1962, assassinated President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and two days later was killed by Jack Ruby. In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, David Barrett, a Villanova University political science professor, described how two National Security Agency employees foreshadowed Snowden — in 1960. William Martin, 29, and Bernon Mitchell, 31, said they were going on vacation (Snowden told his boss he had to get medical treatment) and turned up as defectors in Moscow, where they announced that the United States was spying on countries all over the world. It was the biggest violation of national security ever. Sound familiar? “They went on to lead long, unhappy lives in the Soviet Union,” Barrett wrote. Even though Russia has never been a beacon of democracy or free speech, that hasn’t stopped defectors, Savodnik said. Joseph Dutkanicz, an American soldier stationed in West Germany, was recruited by the KGB in 1958 and defected in 1960. He worked in a TV factory in Lvov in western Ukraine, living under constant surveillance by the KGB and complaining that the officers were trying to drive him mad. He asked to return home but died, reportedly drunk, in 1963. Glenn Souther, a Navy photo analyst, defected in 1986 and killed himself in 1989 at the age of 32 in Moscow, hailed as a master spy. Robert Webster, a Clevelander who went to Moscow in 1959 to set up an exhibit for a plastics company at a trade fair, fell for a hostess at the Ukraine Hotel restaurant. The woman was thought to be a KGB agent. (These days the hotel is a good place to sit behind an overly expensive glass of wine and watch a parade of well-muscled, gold-chain-draped men conduct business.) Webster was given a job in Leningrad but eventually yearned for home and returned in 1962 — as an alien allowed in as part of a Russian quota, according to “The Defector Study,” a report prepared for Congress in 1979. History has yet to decide how it will treat Snowden. Savodnik predicts that if he stays, he’ll be hustled out of Moscow, sent to an out-of-the-way city and given an apartment in a khrushchevka — one of the now-crumbling five-story buildings hurriedly put up during the era of Premier Nikita Khrushchev more than half a century ago. “From the Kremlin’s point of view, Snowden has already served his purpose,” Savodnik said. “He embarrassed the White House. If he had any data to share, they would have obtained it by now. At this point, if you’re [President] Vladimir Putin, you want Snowden to disappear.” No doubt he would be given work, but the Russians wouldn’t trust him near anything sensitive, Savodnik said. The young man who might have thought he was changing the world can now expect to be a welder, or a janitor. “It’s a life somewhere in provincial Russia, far away from everything you may consider stimulating,” Savodnik said. “It’s not a very happy existence.” So, yes, they’ll probably give him asylum, but they’ll make it as unpleasant as possible, he said. “And eventually he’ll turn up at the U.S. Embassy begging to go back home.” One of the most recent American asylum-seekers is John Robles, who declined a request to discuss life in Russia but has told his story through postings on his Web site and on Vkontakte, a Russian version of Facebook. Robles, now 47, had been teaching English in Moscow and applied for a new U.S. passport in 2007. Instead, he has written, it was revoked because he was accused of owing child support in California. The revocation of his passport, he said, made him stateless and prompted his asylum request. He said the accusations against him were untrue and that his children were with him, supported by him. More recently, Robles has been a presenter and interviewer on Voice of Russia radio. Though he criticizes the United States, Robles makes no public complaints about Russia. He lives in an apparently typical Moscow apartment. Recently he wrote that the hot water had returned — the city shuts it off every summer for two to four weeks to clean the pipes — and celebrated its presence with a photo of rusty water emerging from his kitchen faucet. Not long before that, he was asking the eternal question here: Will the winter ever end? * * * *

This is good, John. Thanks very much. DSL 7/15/13; 10:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

John: I have not seen you one here in sometime. So in this interview LHO was the one who began speaking in Russian. Not Judyth. Hmmmm. Dawn Well, that's not the story she told me. When I spoke with her--and the date was March 4, 2000--she related the same incident. What she said to me was that she dropped something, that Oswald picked it up and handed it to her, and that she--Judyth--then spoke in Russian, saying [in Russian] "Thank you, Comrade." And then the conversation proceeded from there. "I didn't think he'd understand it" (referring to what she had just said), "but he answered me in Russian. That was a bond." I went over this account carefully. "He answered you in Russian?" I asked. "He certainly did," replied Judyth. As to why Oswald picked up whatever it was she dropped, Judyth said: "He was standing behind me in line. He was already striking up conversation, smiling at me and all that. I knew he was going to talk to me." She also explained: "Basically what it comes down to is I started speaking Russian spontaneously and that really caught his attention. And the other thing that caught his attention, David [referring to me--dsl] is [that] I looked like Marina. And I think that is one reason they sent me there. . .[notice the "they"--dsl] I passed as Marina on the street. Many times when people thought I was her. I even went to Bannister's office, they thought it was mean, I mean it was her and all that. I looked like Marina Oswald." As to the the Russian capability, Judyth told me that she was trained "At Manatee Community College in Bradenton, Florida. It was all paid for. I didn't pay a penny. That was unheard of back then." Oh well. . in any event, that's what she told me (offered in the spirit of: "for those who wish to believe.") DSL 6/18/13; 10:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Well, Robert, here's another dialectical paradox about Lee Harvey Oswald. Marguerite Oswald often claimed that her son was 'the greatest hero' because he died in the line of duty, working for one of the Intelligence Agencies. In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3. So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis. What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?) Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3? Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis. At all. I'll tell you what I believe--and this arises from my belief that the autopsy was falsified; and furthermore, that it was the falsification of Kennedy's wounds (and the attendant "lone guilt" of Oswald) that provided the foundation for that false autopsy. Once I made those discoveries--and I'm going back now to the all of 1966--I felt that there was a pirate flag, flying over the White House. (And I wrote exactly that in Best Evidence). So that's how I felt about my government. In short, I believed then--and still believe--that the Johnson presidency was illegitimate, and the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War represents a complete departure from anything Kennedy would have done, or was intended by him. Lee Oswald, and the narrative of the "lone assassin," provided the "political narrative" for the operation of the line of succession. The false life Oswald lived, and his supposed guilt as "the assassin" provided the basis for creating the appearance that the assassination of President Kennedy was a quirk of fate, and for their then being a stable political transition from Kennedy to Johnson. That's what this is all about, and nothing less. DSL 6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Regarding the statement in your post. . : "David Lifton says that in the 1992 Bill Clinton on the campaign trail (privately) revealed himself to be quite a conspiracy buff in the JFK assassination. . " Yes, that is true. My very good friend, the late Robert Chapman (who, btw, was also a close friend of Mary Ferrell, and did a lot of the "dog work" in connection with setting up the Ferrell Foundation), was the owner of a restaurant in Memphis: "Mollies". There was an occasion--and perhaps more than one--when candidate Clinton came by, and Robert spoke to him, at length. Without question, Bill Clinton followed the case. Remember what he said to Hubble (when he appointed him AG): that he wanted him to get to the bottom of two things, UFO's and the Kennedy assassination. Some six months before she died, Jacqueline Kennedy spent time with Clinton, on a yacht (there are photographs of all this) and I think that it was made clear to Clinton that Jacqueline Kennedy did not want President Clinton to pursue the matter. (I have my own beliefs as to why). But, I believe, that goes to the root of why Clinton changed his position, which indeed he did. And I believe one can find that laid out in NY Times accounts of a press conference he held around the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. I am writing this post from memory, but I want to reiterate that Robert Chapman definitely had talks with Bill Clinton, when he was a candidate, and yes, Clinton was most interested in the Kennedy assassination. DSL 6/18/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Steve: this is all very interesting. But the one thing I'd like to know is this: is there any reason to believe that Gordon Novel was really involved in any CIA sanctioned covert operation against Garrison? In other words, I'm trying to bridge the gap between your (relatively recent) weird experience with him, and what the pro-Garrison folks believe to be some sort of officially sanctioned covert operation. I also do not understand why, if he's as nutty as you appear to say he is, that his influence was such that the governor of Ohio would refuse to extradite him. Can you shed any light on any of this, without encroaching on what you'd like to save for your published work? DSL 6/18/13; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

How can it be Bill Stinson? The man is dressed like a doctor. Was Stinson suddenly called upon to put on doctors' garb and treat Governor Connally? ~shrug~ Yes, it almost certainly is Bill Stinson. If you look in Seth Kantor's typed notes, there is a passage about Stinson being in scrubs, and coming into the room when Kilduff first announces JFK's death. Also, I have a filmed interview with Nurse Bell, and she talks about Stinson being in scrubs, and being inside the OR with Connally. (So. . Good for Gary Mack, for making that ID). DSL

John, I don’t think being over 60 has anything to do with this. And I am largely in agreement with Robert Morrow’s post. Gary Loughran talks about who “we have lost.” What about the fact that the level of toxicity has been considerably reduced? When it comes having decent values, I don’t see that age has anything to do it. There is nothing “old fashioned” about telling the truth, or standing up for what is right. And one’s age shouldn’t make a difference. You said a mouthful in one of your recent post, and I would like to return to that statement, because it really goes to the heart of the matter. Quoting from your post on “The Future of the Forum”: In the early days of the JFK forum authors of books on the assassination, were willing to discuss their material on the subject. I was aware that people held strong opinions on the assassination but I had no idea of the level of hatred that people had for fellow researchers. The real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy. The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail. Your statement about the “level of hatred” really struck a chord. Why is that? I do not have an answer. But I agree—that’s the key issue, and all I can say is that I have become acutely aware of that issue. Harrison Livingstone has left death threats on my answering machine; then he sued me for $50 million claiming I was part of a conspiracy to kill him. The late Roger Feinman wrote a scurrilous manuscript claiming my book was a hoax, that I made it up to get a book contract. And there are a number of other people I could mention. Everybody’s theory about the assassination cannot be correct. As Sylvia Meagher used to say—the assassination happened only one way, once. And, as I have added: It did not happen once for the benefit of he Warren Commission, and another time for the benefit of its critics. And, of course, there would have to be “multiple reruns” to accommodate the many different conspiracy hypotheses that have been offered to explain this event. Of critical importance: People’s identity gets tied up with their views on this event. And that is the problem. All I can say is thankyou for the forum, and I believe you have exercised proper judgment. DSL 6/18/13; 2:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Yes, Stuart. I believe I have the evidence which establishes that Lee Oswald was trained for--and had--an intelligence assignment at the time of his October, 1959 defection. I am somewhat surprised that you would cite Oswald's lack of a "college education." (Shades of elitism there, no?) IMHO: that is really quite beside the point. Oswald was an auto-didact--surely you are aware of that. In New Orleans, library records show he was reading at the rate of 2 books/week. Just look at today's headlines: Snowden is described as a "high-school drop out"--and yet look at the systems to which he had access, systems for which he had higher-than-top-secret clearance. FWIW: I interviewed enough people who knew Oswald--and knew him well--to understand how bright and talented and (yes) gifted he was. (I suppose you are aware that he was linguistically gifted?) In any event, ultimately, the issue is not Oswald's IQ score, but events as they actually happened. Yes, I stand by my position that Oswald had an intelligence assignment at the time of his October, 1959 defection to the U.S.S.R., and I will present the evidence which establishes that. FWIW--and this is purely anecdotal: I have in my possession a picture of me and about 30 of my classmates dated October 25, 1959, taken at my fraternity (Tau Delta Phi) at Cornell University in the fall of 1959. Its labeled "Fall Weekend - October 25, 1959." Many of us in that photo were about Oswald's age at that time. Included in that picture are a number of people who went on to very good careers in medicine, real estate, and banking, and one who became one of the top officials at IBM Laboratories. Let me assure you that none of those people had the smarts (or, yes, the intellect) to do what Oswald did in October, 1959. The notion that we were all in our sophomore, junior and senior years at Cornell, at the time Lee Oswald was staging this defection is intriguing, and rather sobering--if not remarkable. I understand the model you are positing: "[that] they became aware of Oswald's desire to defect. . and monitored him to guage (sic) Soviet interest" etc - - IMHO, that is an incorrect model and does not explain the preponderance of the evidence. Flashing forward to 1963: the issue of Oswald having an intelligence assignment during the 17 months after his June, 1962 return to the U.S. thoroughly ante-dates his September, 1963, trip to Mexico City. If you carefully examine Oswald's behavior, there are indications of that going back nine months (or more) prior to that trip. But that's another issue. FLAWED LOGIC: My Key Objective in posting what I did In any event: we'll have to postpone debate on that matter until I set forth my entire analysis. Basically, I was motivated to post what I did because of the flawed logic of those who seem to believe that because McMillan wrote the story she did (November, 1959) ergo, she must have been "doing a job" for the agency. The same flawed logic appears concerning the way Oswald presented himself--as a genuine Marxist (or even a "communist")--in the Spring of 1959 (when stationed at El Toro Marine Base in Southern California--in the Marines. (Ergo: "Kerry Thornley, who testified about that, must be lying." That, as you may be aware, was the dynamic behind Garrison's indicting Thornley for perjury). Among other things, that simplistic reasoning avoids the fact that other Marines --not everyone, but others--also said that Oswald presented himself as a Marxist.) And then the same kind of flawed logic crops up again when Oswald, living at Ruth Paine's home in the fall of 1963 (again) presents himself as a Marxist: Ergo, "Ruth Paine" (or Michael Paine) must be part of the plot". There seems no end to this kind of "reasoning." Have those who make such statements forgotten that, when on the radio in August, 1963, Oswald said "I am a Marxist"? And that he also said it on TV? Or that, when in the custody of the Dallas Police after Kennedy's murder, Oswald said, "I am a Marxist"? Does any JFK researcher believe that when Oswald said, over the New Orleans media, "I am a Marxist," that the media fabricated that message? (Of course not). Does any JFK researcher believe that when Oswald, in custody of the Dallas Police, said "I am a Marxist" that Captain Fritz (or the FBI agents) who reported these statements were making them up? Of course not. And yet: going back several years to the Spring of 1959, when Oswald told Thornley he was a Marxist or a Communist..why is there such a reluctance to believe what Oswald said? And going to November 14, 1959, when he spoke to Aline Mosby (or November 16, 1959, when he spoke to Priscilla Johnson McMillan), why is there reluctance to believe what either of those ladies then reported--Mosby, via UPI (on 11/15/59) and McMillan, via NANA, in the month that followed? In setting forth the above statements, I am not citing them evidence of Oswald's genuine beliefs. I am simply stating that this is what he said. This is the way Oswald presented himself. CONFUSING THE MESSAGE WITH THE MESSENGER For reasons I will never quite understand, there are those who read the above statements, and then reverse the "arrow of causality" (if I may be permitted to coin a phrase here) and decide to pick and choose: they arrogate to themselves the power to decide in which cases Oswald actually said something, and in which case the person who is reporting what he said must be lying (!). I find that illogical and bizarre. And just look where this kind of "reasoning" leads. . . : Ergo: Kerry Thornley gets indicted for perjury by Garrison; or certain researchers push the notion that, because Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a "wanna be" CIA researcher (or yes, even an "agent"), that therefore that nullifies the evidence of what Oswald actually said he was when he spoke with her on the evening of November 16, 1959. As to your objection--that is, your objection to anyone sending Oswald "into the USSR . .[at age 19] w/o a college education"--I thoroughly disagree. In fact, during the nearly 3 years Oswald spent in the U.S. Marines, he acquired experience, and training, that went well beyond "a college education," in terms of the training he received for what he then did, upon arriving in the USSR. DSL 6/16/13; 2:20 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Lee Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union on Friday, October 16, 1959. Within hours, he wrote a letter to the Supreme Soviet saying he wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship and become a Soviet citizen. In that letter--which was unavailable to the Warren Commission and first made available after Russian President Boris Yeltsin turned it over to US President Bill Clinton in August, 1999--Oswald said: "I want citizenship because I am a communist and a worker; I have lived in a decadent capitalist society where the workers are slaves." Oswald's request was turned down, and on Wednesday, October 21--the last day of his six-day tourist visa--he prevented his (forced) expulsion when he attempted suicide (or staged a suicide attempt, depending on one's interpretation). This dramatic act of Oswald changed the entire dynamic, and the Oswald case then went to the top of the Soviet Government. Both the top level KGB then became involved, and, more important, the case was considered by Gromyko, and Mikoyan and Madame Furtseyva, the Minister of Culture, and reportedly Khruschev's girlfriend). The entire matter wasn't resolved until late November, when the USSR granted Oswald permission to remain in Russia (but not in Moscow; rather, he would be sent to Minsk). In the interim, Oswald took a number of actions to further his chances of being granted permission to stay. In particular, on Saturday, October 31, 1959, he went to the American Embassy, met with Consul Snyder, threw down his passport, and said he was through with the U.S. and capitalism, and wanted to remain in Russia for the rest of his life. In other words, on October 31, 1959, Oswald said to Snyder--verbally, and in person--what he had already stated in writing, to the Soviet Presidium, on the day he arrived in Moscow. Then came two "newspaper events". On Saturday, November 14, he called UPI's Aline Mosby, and invited her to his hotel for an interview. Her story ran on the UPI wire on Sunday, November 15, and was published --for example--in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. It ran under the headline "Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs" (and is Commission Exhibit 2716). Two days later, on Monday, November 16, Priscilla Johnson (later Priscilla McMillan) knocked on Oswald's hotel door, and arranged to interview him that evening. She made notes, and filed a nearly identical story with North American News Alliance (NANA). But NANA was not a wire service, and so McMillan submitted her story by mail, and it was published in a number of newspapers over the the following month. Mosby's story begins: Lee Oswald, still sporting the chop-top haircut he wore in the U.S. Marines, said Saturday that when he left America to seek citizenship in Russia, "It was like getting out of prison." But his dream of achieving Soviet citizenship in exchange for U.S. citizenship he renounced went aglimmering. The 20-year-old Texan from Fort Worth said Soviet authorities would not grant him citizenship although they said he could live in Russia freely as a resident alien." McMillan's story begins:"For two years now I have been waiting to do this one thing. To dissolve my American citizenship and become a citizen of the Soviet Union." Today, twenty year-old Lee Harvey Oswald of Fort Worth, Texas, is in Moscow. he hopes he's close to his goal." The two stories are very similar, because Oswald said the same thing to both reporters--i.e., he said the same thing to Aline Mosby, on Saturday November 14, as he said to McMillan on Monday, November 16--the difference being that Mosby's story ran nationwide on the UPI wire and had much more of a public relations effect than did McMillan's account. Some JFK researchers have spent a lot of time and effort attempting to argue that Priscilla McMillan's story reads the way it does because she was "doing a job" for the agency. I don't see it that way, at all. On the question of Priscilla McMillan being a CIA operative, and writing the story she did because she was a "CIA operative" or a "wanna be" CIA person, etc., here's where I stand: The issue is not whether Priscilla Johnson McMillan may have been a CIA operative in 1959. Rather, the point is that Lee Oswald definitely was a CIA operative in October, 1959, and his entire defection was a fake. So: Oswald was not “framed” by false accounts created by either of these two nefarious female “CIA agents” in 1959—McMillan and/or Mosby. Rather: Oswald -- himself a CIA operative -- consciously and deliberately spewed the words that McMillan and Mosby both dutifully wrote down in 1959, and then distributed through their news outlets: Mosby, via UPI; and McMillan via NANA. Oswald himself indeed said what Oswald is alleged to have said in 1959 -- and he had very specific reasons for saying it: i.e., to further his fake defection to the USSR. So that is the issue, not whether Macmillan and/or Mosby were agency-affiliated in 1959. Those JFK researchers who –-for whatever reason—insist on focusing on McMillan are looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope. Priscilla McMillan was not the central character back in 1959; Oswald was—and, historically, still is. Viewed that way, the “media” was not “controlling” the portrait of Oswald; rather, Oswald was utilizing the media (available to him in Moscow) to paint the picture of himself that he wanted projected—i.e., to “paint” his own “self-portrait” to further his own defection. DSL 6/16/13; 2:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul: If you are interested in one of the best books ever written which accurately describes Oswald's character and personality, then I highly recommend the book written by Ernst Titovets, Oswald's best friend when he was in Minsk. The book is titled OSWALD: Russian Episode, is 400 plus pages long. consist of 35 chapters divided into 7 separate sections. Titovets starts by painting the general picture in Minsk, circa 1960 (Oswald arrived there on January 7, 1960) and then goes through the story of how he met Oswald, and the friendship that ensued. Titovets--then a medical student (and now "Dr. Titovets")-- met Oswald around September 24, 1960. The two went to plays, concerts, went out with girls, debated politics and philosophy. Titovets was a serious student of language, and accents. On one (or more) occasions, he set up a (Wollensak) tape recorder and had Oswald read from short stories by Hemingway, and from Shakespeare. That's right: Hemingway and Shakespeare--and just reading about all this results in a genuine portrait of the real Oswald, not the two-dimensional cartoon figure spread all over the Internet by various Lone Nutters, whose "analyses" of Oswald border on character assassination. I first spoke to Titovets back around 1992 or early 1993, within a year of the fall of the U.S.S.R., and when he almost made a trip to the U.S., and we have emailed a bit since then. And I do appear --briefly--in his book. But back to Dr. Titovets, and my own view of his accomplishment. He is, in many respects, Lee Oswald's "Boswell." There is really none other like him. He is observant, highly analytic, and writes well. There is no other person who took such a sincere and genuine interest in Oswald, and then spent the time he did to write such a book. As Lee Oswald said, in his own "Historic Diary": "Erich [Ernst Titovets] is my oldest existing acquaintance. . .a friend of mine who speaks English very well." Were it not for the Cold War, Titovets would have been an important witness before the Warren Commission. Just imagine: you knew someone for just 20 months, and then--some 30 years later--that person set out to assemble his notes and recollections and writes a 400 page book about you. That's what Titovets did. And he has done a really fine job. This book provides a detailed accounting of Oswald, as observed by Titovets, for some 20 months--from 9/24/60, when he first met Oswald, until around May 22, 1962, when they visited briefly for the last time. Ernst Titovets has a website, and perhaps you can order the book there. In any event, I highly recommend the book for anyone seeking to understand Oswald, and get a balanced picture of what he was like. DSL 6/12/13; 2:10 AM PDT; edited and revised: 6/12/13, 4:25 PDT Los Angeles, California

Daniel, [snipped to save space] Mr. Lifton While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision. Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter? Not really. But it must be understood that Dr. Perry testified twice-- in a WC deposition in Dallas, and another time before the entire Warren Commission in Washington, D.C.--that his incision was horizontal. He also told me, when we spoke (and I was asking questions leading to the notion of a larger incision than 2-3 cm) that it was a general principle of surgery not to make the incision any larger than need be. The clear implication was that "2-3 cm" --which was the length he gave me--was quite adequate for the task at hand. DSL 6/12/13; 1:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Daniel, The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence: Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report) One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition). Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera. To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963? That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes." DSL 6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul, I wanted to focus on one statement you made, and make some comments which perhaps will clarify my own position on all this. Quoting from your post: And btw I think Lifton is a little blind to the extent which the CIA exercises control over the media. But that isn't the point. It is certainly a matter of style not substance. UNQUOTE My own comment: The issue is not whether Priscilla Johnson MacMillan may have been a CIA operative in 1959: The point is that Lee Oswald definitely was a CIA operative in October, 1959, and his entire defection was a fake. So: Oswald was not “framed” by false accounts created by two nefarious female “CIA agents” in 1959; rather: Oswald -- himself a CIA operative -- consciously and deliberately spewed the words that MacMillan and Mosby both dutifully wrote down in 1959, and then distributed through their news outlets: Mosby, via UPI; and McMillan via NANA. Oswald himself indeed said what Oswald is alleged to have said in 1959 -- and he had very specific reasons for saying it: i.e., to further his fake defection to the USSR. So that is the issue, not whether Macmillan and/or Mosby were agency-affiliated in 1959. Those JFK researchers who –for whatever reason—insist on focusing on McMillan are looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope. Priscilla McMillan was not the central character back in 1959; Oswald was—and, historically, still is. Viewed that way, the “media” was not “controlling” the portrait of Oswald; rather, Oswald was utilizing the media (available to him in Moscow) to paint the picture of himself that he wanted projected—i.e., to “paint” his own “self-portrait” to further his own defection. DSL 6/10/13; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

I do not mind what people's opinions are. They can disagree as much as they want to. All I am asking is that they do not break rule (iv): “Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.” I think the London Education Forum is a critically important educational resource, and I hope it stays around for a long time. Its akin to an Britannica Encyclopedia on the Kennedy assassination, and I utilize it in just that fashion all the time. As an author currently immersed in writing a manuscript, I have made a number of friends here, with whom I have had productive side-discussions, via email; and I have also learned new information. My editor has asked me why I bother to post here, and my reply has been that its often useful to expose ideas and views and see how they are received. The recent thread on Buell Wesley Frazier is a good example. I don’t think there has ever been a more detailed back and forth on the question of the paper bag, and information posted in connection with that thread led to my learning about a new witness, and revamping a section of my own text. The recent thread on Oswald—1959 photo—led me to carefully review files and information; and the thread on Priscilla Johnson McMillan (where I have recently made about six posts) is another area where I was able to incorporate my own manuscript research and just post some of it on the forum. However, I must add that I was not just surprised—but shocked—at the recent behavior of Scully and DiEugenio. Specifically, it has been more than annoying to turn on my computer each morning to see myself the subject of repeated personal and nasty attacks by Tom Scully, as if he is going to take me to the woodshed and teach me a lesson. He has no business being a moderator ---and I have said exactly that. As for DiEugenio, he has been attacking me and Best Evidence for years. That, I suppose, comes with the territory. But his contemptuous and insulting tone does not belong in any civil discussion; and, as far as I’m concerned, something occurred yesterday which really bothered me. DiEugenio crossed a line—big time—when in a post yesterday (and I don’t know if anyone noticed), but DiEugenio all but directly accused Priscilla McMillan of being connected with those that murdered President Kennedy. I have wondered just how long its going to be before McMillan has her lawyer get involved with DiEugenio and his accusations. If he wants to accuse people in that fashion, then I think he should do it on his on his own website, and not drag the London Forum through the mud. Recently, he has actually sent me emails aggressively inquiring about my personal finances, and demanding answers, the tone being that if I did not respond to his inquiries, why he might then be posting certain information up on his website. Is that the kind of person that belongs on the London Forum? Or in any public discussion? IMHO: Getting rid of Scully and DiEugenio is akin to getting rid of two major bullies in the classroom; and sometimes the teacher has to step in and do just that. Congratulations, John. I support your decision. DSL 6/9/13; 12:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Don, Could you please explain what this statement of yours is supposed to mean? QUOTE: While Operation Mockingbird may not be official policy any longer, the recent success of Anderson Cooper (admitted CIA intern) reveals that there are still entangling alliances between the worlds of espionage and "journalism." UNQUOTE I watch Anderson Cooper quite often and, until this post of yours, never knew he had been an "admitted CIA intern" (so what is the source for that?); but even if that is true--that some years ago, perhaps many years ago if he was an "intern"--what in the world does that have to do with his "recent success"? Could you please explain? I'd really like to understand the connectivity you perceive here. Thank you. DSL 6/8/13; 4:55 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Len Colby: Could you please clarify your post, starting with the words "Hat tip"?? I find what follows that very confusing, and not really intelligible. Thank you. DSL

Thanks, Todd. It took me awhile to compose that post, and I hope people who are reading this thread find it useful. I think the time has come to distinguish between those who analyze evidence correctly, and those who see everything through a "CIA lens"--e.g., "He (or she) has some peripheral connection to the CIA. . .ergo, everything she wrote is false!" etc etc. DSL 5/27/13; 6:45 PDT Los Angeles, California

Well David, I do not understand why you could keep saying "it is entirely unwarranted." Come on over and I will show you why it is warranted and you can explain why you feel so strongly, despite the evidence. Can we at least get you on record, denying or minimizing the significance of every "coincidence" related to Priscilla, as they are served to you in small helpings, or should we start off with the Peter Whitmey treatment? You do not have to talk about this, but I am sick of reading the quote that comprises the title of this thread. Put up, or......! Tom Scully, You have the position of "moderator" here on the London Forum. As such, its your job to supervise the discussion, not to mount an attack on a poster. I posted a perfectly reasonable and informative post explaining what my views are, in this area, and why I believe what I believe. If you wish (and if you are capable of doing so) boil down your views to something that is readable and cogent, and then I will try to reply. But note what I said: "readable and cogent": please do not respond with long-winded and largely irrelevant posts which contains scads of "geneological data" (as to who married who, and when, or who is distantly related to whom, etc.--from which we are supposed to draw inferences). I've set forth my information and views; now set forth yours. MY OWN VIEW OF THIS COMPLEX SITUATION Also, let me spell out one other point: I disagree--as you surely must know--with the view that Oswald shot the President; and, consequently, I (of course) disagree with substantial portions of the "portrait of Oswald" as presented in Marina and Lee. However, Priscilla Johnson McMillan wrote what she did, because that's the information that she was told by Marina, and Marina told her much of what she did, because that's the way Lee Oswald behaved, in front of Marina. I'm oh so sorry if you don't (or can't) understand that--but that's a fact. Its also a fact that I met Marina in January, 1981, and, over the following years, had not one, but dozens of lengthy conversations with her. And, while there is no quantitative measure of what happened, I'm sure I helped "de-program" her from the view that she previously had that her husband was (or "must have been") Kennedy's assassin. That view was not put there (i.e., inside her head) by Priscilla McMillan--who didn't meet Marina until several months after the Kennedy assassination, sometime in the spring of 1964. Then the two started a series of lengthy interviews, and then--in 1977--came Priscilla's book. MARINA'S PREVIOUS VIEW (AND SUPPORT OF) PRISCILLA McMILLAN As Marina herself said when she testified before the HSCA (circa 1978) she believed (at the time) tat the book was the truth; and when asked certain number of detailed questions about this or that event, she deferred to Priscilla, who had made careful notes from her many interviews. So that's the source of the portrait of Lee Oswald in Priscilla's book--it derives from the way Lee acted (when he was with Marina); and from Marina's recounting all those experiences, to Priscilla McMillan. Then, later--and Marina's November 1988 interview with Myrna Blythe, of the Ladies Home Journal is a good enough (public) starting point--Marina had changed her mind about what all this meant, and said so publicly: loud and clear. That also marked the beginning of a serious split between Marina and Priscilla McMillan. Because, viewing the whole thing retrospectively, Marina --who apparently set aside the fact that she had thoroughly endorsed the book upon publication, and when she testified before the HSCA--now placed the blame, or some of the blame, a least, on Priscilla. Be that as it may, and now flashing forward to 1991: when the producers of the movie about Marina (Fatal Deception: The Marina Oswald Story) interviewed Marina, she made clear to them the role I had played in causing her to take a second look at the past, which then--ultimately--resulted in her changing her mind about what happened. (And, FYI, I had quite a few conversations with screenwriter Steve Bello; and, as you may be aware, I was portrayed in the movie.) WHAT PRISCILLA McMILLAN WROTE IN 1959 Now there are some people who approach this whole situation --i.e., starting with the evening Lee Oswald spent with Priscilla McMillan on Monday, November 16, 1959--and insist on blaming Priscilla McMillan (who later was deposed by the Warren Commission) for what she wrote immediately after that encounter; and which was then published in various newspapers in the U.S., mostly in December, 1959. For example, here is the headline as Priscilla's story ran in the Miami News, in mid-to-late December, 1959: "Defector in Russia, Near to his 'Dream'". And the first paragraph reads: "For two years now, I have been waiting to do this one thing: to dissolve my American citizenship and become a citizen of the Soviet Union" Today, 20 year old Lee Harey Oswald of Fort Worth, Tex., is in Moscow. He hopes he's close to his goal." Priscilla wrote the article she did based on her interview with Lee Oswald on Monday evening, November 16, 1959. As I pointed out in my post on the other thread--which you have failed to link to--Aline Mosby wrote a thoroughly similar article, which was based on her interview with Lee Oswald on Saturday, November 14, 1959. There's practically no difference between the two articles, because Lee Oswald said essentially the same thing to both ladies, two days apart. (Yet some people attack Priscilla for writing what she did, ignoring the fact that UPI's Aline Mosby wrote a nearly identical story which was distributed nationally by UPI on November 15, 1959). Now flashing forward to 1963, Lee behaved as he did in front of Marina, and as a consequence, she came to believe --despite her initial disbelief--that Lee was indeed Kennedy's assassin. Here, from the New York Times of January 8, 1964, is what she said, in an interview with reporter Jack Langguth, which ran under the headline: "Oswald's Widow Now Reported Convinced of Husband's Guilt." Mrs. Lee H. Oswald is convinced that her husband assassinated President Kennedy, her business adviser said today. James H. Martin, the adviser, said her conviction was so strong that even if a jury could find Oswald not guilty her opinion would be unchanged. . . . “She’s convinced that he’s guilty, even though she cared for him.” And, of course, she testified accordingly; and she spoke similarly to Priscilla McMillan. In October, 1977, when Marina and Lee was published, Marina stood behind the book, and its author. The New York Times published an article bearing the headline Oswald's Widow Tells of "Very High Level of Anger" at him for Legacy of Shame As for her view (then) of Lee, she said: "I was so young and immature. . . I didn't realize he had a sick mind. I didn't analyze him or me or our marriage that deeply and seek real help for him. I was too blind." As to how she viewed Lee at the time, she said: "It's a very strong word to use: hate. Perhaps a very high level of anger is closer," she said. Why? "How dare he ruin my name and that of my children forever? And I do not believe in killing other people." (NYT, 10/13/77) As I said above, I met Marina in January, 1981, and had dozens of conversations with her, and she definitely changed. The "revisionist" view of what happened Now please don't come along today, in 2013, with some oversimplified foolishness and try to tell me that Priscilla McMillan is responsible for Marina's views (as expressed in January, 1964, or before the Warren Commission in February, 1964) or anything of the sort. That's a bunch of hooey. And please don't try to sell me the bill of goods that Priscilla wrote what she did, after she spent several hours interviewing Lee on the evening of Monday, November 16, 1959, because she was somehow "connected" (my quotes) to the CIA--because that, also, is a bunch of hooey. As I said (and will repeat here): for the most part, the criticism of Priscilla McMillan, for the portrait of Lee Oswald as presented in Marina and Lee, did not come about because she had some kind of sinister and covert connection with the CIA, but because of the way Lee Oswald behaved in front of her on November 16, 1959 (which is also the way he behaved with UPI's Aline Mosby, two days before); and because of the way he behaved during most of his marriage with Marina, and certainly after he returned to the U.S. in mid-June, 1962. Tom Scully--Moderator, or editorialist with a personal agenda? Finally, and back to my previous thought: You are (or are supposed to be) a moderator on the London Forum. Please stop attacking me personally, or--as you previously did--tell me that I'm "unrepentent". If you have genuine "evidence," then go present it. (And please don't fill this thread with long geneological posts that wander all over the place, and prove nothing.) My views are based on my extensive knowledge of the evidence in this case, and the many conversations I had with Marina Oswald Porter starting in January, 1981 (when I met her in Dallas when Best Evidence was published) and which went on for the better part of a decade. These conversations --I believe--probably assisted her in changing her mind (by 1988) about her husband. Certainly, they played a role in making sure that the movie produced by Wolper et al ("Fatal Deception: The Marina Oswald Story", on which I was a consultant, and in connection with which I had many conversations with screenwriter Steve Bello) was reasonably close to the truth, in portraying Marina's complex journey--i.e., her own mind-bending experiences, and the journey Marina took from Leningrad to Minsk, and then to the U.S., where--17 months after her arrival on U.S. soil--her husband became the accused assassin of President Kennedy. DSL 5/27/13 6 PM PDT Los Angeles, California