David Lifton

I love this exchange: Dan Gallup: I quoted him accurately above. Go back and read the transcript of 11/22/63 at Parkland. And since it is clear cerebellum extruded from the wound, I will bet the farm the wound extended low enough behind the ears to lacerate the cerebellum. Pat Speer: That's not clear at all. Most of those once claiming to see cerebellum would later claim they'd been wrong. ". . . later claim they'd been wrong. . . "? Oh, you mean after Best Evidence was published, and, as a consequence of my book, some of these doctors started to realize the political implications of what they had reported? And then had (in some cases) a very public "Ooops!" moment? And so at that point, as if they were on a skit on Saturday Night Live, they said "Never mind." Jenkins --fyi--is Exhibit A of this sort of behavior. As I personally know--when Pat Valentino and I met with him at Parkland, in January, 1983: Jenkins made clear (now coming face to face with the author whose book had caused him so much trouble), and said that it didn't matter what he had previously written or said; it didn't matter at all. Nope, none of it mattered. He agreed with the official version. And that was his final word on the subject. In other words: in law school and in classes on evidence, one is taught the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection." But not with Dr. Jenkins, who apparently wanted to re-write the rule to read: "The earliest recollection is important, until and unless something is published which causes me embarrassment, at which point I have the right to retract. Indefinitely. " Let's see. . what should we call this? The "Marion Jenkins Exception To the 'best evidence' concept?" And you take that seriously? That, to you, is significant? Indeed, you do take that sort of "retraction" seriously, and you do find it significant; and that, in part, is precisely what is wrong with much of your work, which is pervaded with this type of mistaken and wrong-headed "analysis," based on this sort of "amended" record. Oh pleez. . . DSL

So the president was shot with bullets that did not exit. Where did the bullets go? I know you are a respected author of a popular book. I can see your impact on some of the members of this forum. Mr. Rago, The assassination of President Kennedy was a political crime. It was not simply a “multiple shooter conspiracy” in which the solution lies in finding out “what happened on the grassy knoll.” Of fundamental importance is that this crime was an inside job—and not only that, but an “inside job” that was carefully and deliberately disguised to have been an outside job: a man in a building who shot a man in a car. That’s the appearance presented on 11/22/63, and that did not happen by accident. There are probably any number of ways to simply “kill the President.” But that’s not what this (i.e., "Dallas") was about—the goal here was not just to “kill the President,” but to do so and get away with it (and to clear a path so that the line of succession would operate smoothly, elevating the Vice President to the Oval Office); and to accomplish all this by altering the basic facts about the murder, immediately after the crime occurred. A “motorcade assassination” was chosen as the venue and it was carefully planned in advance. “Shooting the President” was just one part of the overall plan. The overall plan was designed to make this well-planned shooting appear to have been a “historical accident.” That’s why the focus was on Oswald, within such a short while, and why no other shooters were seen. None of this could have been done without a plan, designed in advance, to make it appear that Oswald was “the assassin” and that could not have been accomplished without a sensible plan to falsify the autopsy. That’s what BEST EVIDENCE—which you admittedly have not read—is all about; because, ultimately, you cannot have such a plan without planning in advance, to “deal with” the body. That’s because “the body” –in any murder case, but especially in this one—is the centerpiece of the crime, and the most important evidence in the case. By focusing on “the grassy knoll” as the key to this case (your bio says “Mike believes that understanding what happened on the Grassy Knoll is the key to solving this case”) you are focusing on the details of the shooting, rather than the pre-planned falsification of evidence which in fact is the key to arriving at the truth of this murder. Moreover, understanding how that pre-planned falsification was intended to work (even if the details did not work completely as planned) is central to deciphering the puzzle posed by what is commonly called “the Kennedy assassination.” Since the venue for this entire crime was a “motorcade assassination,” then, and as such, one must deal with such “peripheral matters” as: •Who was Lee Harvey Oswald –not who did he “appear” to be, but who, in actuality, was he? And why, at age 19, did he go to Russia, spent 2-3/4 years there, and have a Government assisted return? •How was the trip to Dallas planned, and how was the parade planned? •How was it possible that Oswald (the only one of about 15 defectors with rifle training, and in a nation of some 200 people), was employed on the parade route? •Why, in March, 1963, did he order a rifle, by mail, from a Chicago store that kept its records on microfilm? •If Oswald was a pro-Castro Marxist, how come his favorite author was George Orwell, and his favorite book 1984? Finally, of course, it all comes down to the fact that on 11/22/63, and based on an autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital—after the body was altered—Oswald’s rifle appears to have been the murder weapon. Of course, all of this comes down to the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. BEST EVIDENCE presents the case that the body was altered. In Chapter 14—“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”—I spell out how this could have been planned in advance. That could have happened (and in my opinion did happen) because the authors of this crime understood, as part of the planning that must have taken place, that this was not just about "killing the President" but doing so while, in addition, fabricating a false story of how he died, one that would be acceptable to the mass media, and to all subsequent legal investigations (and, I might add, be almost impossible to detect 'in real time', and not be perceivable until quite a bit of time passed, and a wide assortment of records, particularly medical records, became available.) Apparently, you don’t like my summary statement. You write: “Mr. Lifton, do you seriously believe that a jury would buy this statement?” What you’re really saying is: “Mr. Lifton, I just can’t believe there was a political conspiracy of that magnitude.” Which, really means: “I can’t deal with this global overview you are presenting”. . . which in effect, leads to: “I’d rather believe that the key to this case lies in 'what happened on the grassy knoll.' I prefer viewing 'the conspiracy' as one consisting of "cross-fire", and not treason. I can deal with cross-fire. I cannot deal with treason.” Well, that’s your choice. But that’s sort of like saying that the key to the financial crisis in this country has just gone through was a particularly “bad guy” bond trader (or two) or a particularly greedy investment banker (or two, or three), rather than something more fundamental, and systemic. Of course, you’re entitled to your belief, and no doubt, you would be thrilled to find the “grassy knoll shooter”. . .but, as I said in BEST EVIDENCE, and said many times in public appearances, the key to the Kennedy assassination--the key that leads to the authors of the crime--is not who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body, but who took them out. DSL 8/17/12; 2:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California P.S. As to your question, "Where did the bullets go?" . . I presume you are aware of Dr. Clark's statement, made to the NY Times, that the bullet that entered at the throat "ranged downward and did not exit"; and that you are also aware of the observations of the autopsy doctors at Bethesda--specifically, of the bruise with the pyramidal shaped scar atop the right lung? And the FBI receipt for a "misle" removed from the body and handed to Humes? Somewhere in all that conglomeration of evidence, I am sure, lies the answer to the question as to what happened to that particular bullet. Of course, this is (almost) a mere technicality compared to the more general considerations raised in the main body of my post, above.

You write: "I think that people, in the early days, postulated an entry on the left side of Kennedy because they were confronted with an obvious exit wound in the right temple area." ". . .an obvious exit wound in the right temple area". . . ? FYI: There was no "obvious exit wound" in the right temporal area. There is no such data anywhere in the Dallas medical reports or testimony, or in any statement made by any doctor or nurse to the media, on the day or, or at any time in the month following, President Kennedy's assassination. IMHO: You are placing undue (and unwarranted) reliance on frames from a motion picture film which has been altered. In any event, and had any of this been the subject of litigation: no court of law would ignore the medical reports and testimony of the Dallas dotors, and place reliance on a film which (a) shows altered imagery, and (b ) fails to show a car stop, which was attested to by some 15 witnesses; and (c ) doesn't even show the sharp slowdown (which is attested to by nearly 60 witnesses). Moreover (and in my hypothetical example) telling a judge that he should Google "reliability eyewitness testimony" is not a substitute for the medical reports and testimony of those who saw President Kennedy's body, within minutes of the shooting. DSL

David, There is a serious contradiction to the idea that JFK was shot in the left temple. As the copy of Z 312 below shows his left temple was turned away from a shooter in the North Plaza. Anyone shooting from the North Plaza would be unable to make a hit there. The only area that had access to that aspect of JFK’s body would have to be on the South Plaza. There has been no evidence that there ever were gunmen in the South Plaza. The problem for a shot from the South Plaza is that the target has changed. From the North Plaza Jackie is behind JFK. From the South Plaza, JFK is behind her. Any shot requiring to strike JFK would first have to go through Jackie. I do not question your research. It is amongst the finest in the history of the JFK assassination. However when the results of that research are placed on the historical reality of Dealey Plaza serious questions are immediately raised. One response to this conflict of evidence is to just ignore it. However “Best Evidence” does not show you to be that kind of a researcher. So I am wondering, do you have a response and solution to this conflict? James. First of all, I'm not saying that I have "all the answers," but. . . : You are making certain assumptions. (1) That the Zapruder film imagery is the final word (2) That its a choice between the north plaza and the south plaza. There are other possibilities. More significant, however. . : when you see the entire Dr. Stewart interview, there are other issues. And its very detailed. He's really a very important witness, not as to what he saw (he was not in the room) but because of the conversations he had afterwards. Stay tuned. DSL

Sorry, Pat, but its you who is doing the cherry-picking, not I. Pat Valentino and I sat with these doctors and nurses--both in 1982/83 (where the results were recorded on audio) and then in 1989 (with a film crew). We showed them the autopsy photographs. With the exception of Dr. Perry, who was shown one photograph (by Groden) in New York City, I was the first investigator to show these doctors and nurses the actual autopsy photographs. Again and again, they denied the validity of the wounding as depicted in the autopsy photos (and X-rays). Why don't you re-read the record of these interviews, as published in the Epilogue to the 1982 edition of BEST EVIDENCE, and then republished word-for-work in the 1988 edition, and in the 1993 edition. You call that "cherry picking"? Do you think they were making all that up? Its you who have been doing verbal summersaults attempting to make the record reflect not what the words and statements clearly state, but that which you want to believe is there (and which is not). Going over and over this stuff, publishing fancy diagrams, and massaging it till the end of time, is not going to change what these people saw, wrote in their reports, and then testified to. And I am not just referring here to their opinions about the direction from which Kennedy was shot (from the front), but to the wounds that they observed in the area of the neck and head. No amount of pulling and hauling, on your part, is going to change that record. DSL

Mr.Rago: I spent 15 years researching and writing the book. If you're interested in the subject, then please read it. Thank you. DSL

One of the problems with that scenario, David, is that it is inconsistent with an extremely shallow wound to the back. They could barely get the tip of their pinky to where the path ended. There was no "surgery" evident in the back at the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so without leaving any evidence of surgery? I am not necessarily convinced that the flechette dart was used, but I will not rule it out based on the evidence nor on arguments that I have thus far seen entertained by detractors. I've been looking at this evidence for almost 2 decades and even Fletcher Prouty told me when I brought it up that he was almost certain it was used. He based his opinion on the characteristics of the wounds and the effect on the target, that are unique to this weapon system. He was the one who originally got it approved for development for the CIA. Greg: I think it is good that you are focusing on the back wound. It deserves plenty of attention. Re your statement "There was no "surgery" evident in the back at the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so without leaving any evidence of surgery?" . . . : That is not quite true. Please do not forget Dr. Perry's testimony about what Humes said to him, during the critical phone call the two had on 11/23: "Did you make any wounds in the back?" Here's the exact quote from Perry's WC deposition: ". . . he asked me at that time [Nov 23, 1963] if we had made any wounds in the back." (WC Vol , p. 17) True, that is not "direct evidence" of surgery, but for Humes, an experiences pathologist, to ask Perry a question like that surely implies that there was something about that wound that struck him as peculiar. I would also call your attention to the following "collateral" pieces of evidence. None of this constitutes "direct evidence" of surgery, of course, but it sure seems relevant to me: (1) Nowhere in the autopsy report or testimony is there any evidence that the back wound had an "abrasion collar". (Yet the presence of an abrasion collar is the sin qua non of a genuine bullet wound. (2) In their FD-302 report, FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill refer to the rear entry wound, into which they saw one of the doctors poke his finger as an "opening" in the back (3) That Clark Panel (which examined the autopsy photos in 1968) went out of its way to note that the entry wound that was visible in the official autopsy photographs was too small to "permit the insertion of a finger" (quoting, from memory) (4) As discussed in Chapter 31 of BEST EVIDENCE, a ruler (which doesn't seem to be performing any real function) conceals the area where Sibert and O'Neill report this "opening", in the same photo that shows the supposed entry wound, this time (i.e., in the photograph) sporting a nicely visible abrasion collar. (5 ) There exists an official receipt for a "missile" removed from the body, etc. If all these elements were laid out in an episode of "LAW AND ORDER" or CSI, the next plot development would be for one of the investigators to say, "Hey, that image in the official photo can't possibly be the 'wound' which that doctor inserted his finger!" and "Gee, I wonder what's under the ruler!" and. . finally. . (and this is not going to happen in the JFK case, let me assure you I realize that). . . "Let's get the judge to order an exhumation." Let's take the "wide angle" view of this entire situation (just as I did, when writing BEST EVIDENCE): In lining up the evidence for "body alteration" (more precisely stated, "wound alteration"), the head wounds provide the strongest evidence; the throat wound is next in line; and the two rear entries come last. I think the fundamental threshold question is: Did anyone monkey with the body? Is there any evidence of that--at all? The head wound evidence (per Ch. 13, in BEST EVIDENCE) provides the answer: a resounding "yes". Next comes a similar question, posed re the neck (i.e., throat wound). Again (see Ch 11 of B.E.) the answer is "yes." Once one establishes there is any monkeying around with the body, one has to approach the two rear entries--neither of which were seen in Dallas--from that perspective. Obviously, the purpose of playing around with the body is not to change just one particular wound, but (a) to keep certain ballistic evidence (i.e., "the bullets") from reaching the FBI Laboratory; and (b ) to change the bullet trajectories, which lawyers call, in their inimitable vocabulary, the "facts" of the shooting. Those "facts" (in this case) constitute the medico-legal foundation for the entire official version of the crime--i.e., that Oswald shot the President from the TSBD. And I believe that changing those "facts" to support that false story is exactly what took place on November 22, 1963: the "facts" of the shooting were "changed," so the autopsy conclusions would read one way, and not some other. RE: SOLUBLE BULLETS As for soluble bullets, etc.: I think the proper way to look at that data is not that such missiles were actually used, but rather that, confronted with a body without any bullets (i.e., a "bulletless body," which is the term I used in B.E.) the examining doctors (at Bethesda) were seriously puzzled as to how to explain such an absense. (In the words of the report of agents Sibert and O'Neill, the examining doctors were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets). So, imho, their remarks (along those lines) speaks more to their puzzlement about a bulletless body, than to the actual employment of such technology, in the shooting of JFK. Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed. What I do believe was "employed" --if I may use that term in this context--was a considerable amount of thinking about just how to shoot the President, and then leave his body in such a condition that it would be easy to alter. And I think the answer is exactly as I have laid out in BEST EVIDENCE, in the chapter titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." The plan was to shoot the President from the front, with low velocity ammunition (which would not exit) and then "reverse" the trajectories just as described in my chapter: extract the bullets, and then create false rear entries, as needed. What is important about this whole scheme--which is spelled out in detail, with supporting evidence, in my book--is that the body was treated in its totality, and in advance. So President Kennedy was treated not just as a person to be killed, but (then) as a diagram to be altered. And Chapter 14 spells all that out--right down to the DPD radio transmissions indicating (within 3-5 minutes) that "the assassin" was seen firing from a window of the TSBD, etc etc. This was a well co-ordinated "strategic deception." And I'll have more to say about this "planning in advance" in a future writing. . KENNEDY'S T-SHIRT For now, I'd like to point to an area that Prof. Liebeler and I used to joke about: What happened to President Kennedy's undershirt? And was he wearing one? And what would have happened (vis a vis Arlen Specter, for example) had it been found, and found to contain no (rear entry) bullet hole? Just last night, in reviewing Jimmy Breslin's original interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry, which was published in the Saturday Evening Post in December --but which was published (and most folks do not realize this) on Sunday, 11/24/63, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch--there appears a statement in the article (which could only have come from Dr. Perry), that JFK's T-Shirt was in fact lying there, right on the floor. That it had been removed, and there it was. Its just a passing comment, but wouldn't it have been nice if the WC staff had noticed that, and had sought (a) testimony from Breslin about his original interview with Perry, on 11/23/63, and exactly what notes or recollections he might have had about the T-shirt; and then (b ) questioned Dr. Perry along those same lines? I find it very odd that the T-shirt--reported by Perry, in this article--apparently "disappeared"; and I think all would agree that if that T-shirt did not contain a hole, that would be the ultimate evidence that the back wound was man made. (Which is exactly what I believe to be the case.) DSL 8/17/12; 11:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

MARKER AAA (referring to an earlier point, above, in this post). Pat: You keep ignoring the fact that the Dallas doctors are on record--both in interviews conducted within a few days of the assassination, as well as under oath before the Warren Commission--that it was their opinion that a bullet exited from the rear of the head. Let me lay it out here, from BEST EVIDENCE: Are you not aware of the fact that one doctor after another believed that a bullet exited from the rear of Kennedy's skull? And that this pervaded the accounts published in the press in the days immediately following President Kennedy's murder? And what about the testimony of the Dallas doctors in their Warren Commission depositions. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE (Chapter 13, on the head wounding): Quoting from B.E.: Indeed, six Dallas doctors testified the wound in the rear of the head was an exit wound; and a seventh, Dr. Kemp Clark, said it ould be an exit wound, but it was also possible the wound was "tangential." Dr. Jones testified it 'appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull'; (6 WCH 56)); Dr. Perry referred to it as "avulsive"; (6 WCH 11)) Dr. Jenkins, referring to the region as "exploded," said "I would interpret it being a wound of exit" (1 WCH 50) and Dr. Akin said: "I assume that the right oipito-parietal region was the exit." (6 WCH 67) UNQUOTE How can you possibly ignore such explicit data? And there is more. I then wrote two paragraphs laying out the testimony or public statements of those doctors who joined wound at the front of the throat (which they thought was an entry) with the wound at the back of the head (assumed to be an exit) and who then postulated that a bullet had entered at the President's throat, somehow was deflected up the spinal column, and then exited at the rear of the head. One was Dr. Peters, in my November, 1966 telephone interview with him, as quoted in Chapter 13 of BEST EVIDENCE (see page 317 of the Macmillan or Carrol and Graf edition): "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." Next on the list was Dr. Malcolm Perry. And there I quoted from interviews he gave on Saturday, November 23, to John Geddie of the Dallas Morning News, and Herbert Blak, Medical Editor of the Boston Globe. Quoting these accounts (directly from page 317 of BEST EVIDENCE) --Now quoting: Geddie reported: "The head wound, he [Perry] added, appeared to be 'an exit wound' caused when the bullet passed out." (Dallas Morning News, 11/24/63); To Black, Perry acknowledged it was peculiar that "rather than entering" from behind, the bullet exited "despite the fact [that] the assassin shot from above down on to the President." But he assured Black that the wound he saw on the head was an exit." "We know that the big damage is at the point of exit." He (Perry) offered this explanation: "It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown bak when the bullet or bullets struck him." (Boston Globe, 11/24/63) Now here's my question, Pat Speer: I'm quoting you data from the record, the existing journalistic and testimonial record--and yet you come along, some 48 years later, and simply ignore it, and blithely mistate the record with these glib false statements. Let me go back again, and re-state your false statement: ""None of them described this wound as an entrance wound for a bullet exiting elsewhere on the skull." Well, if they all seemed to agree there was an exit wound at the back of the head, where do you think they must have thought it entered?? I think its time you set aside your cherished (and mistaken) beliefs--which apparently affect the way you interpret the record--and just look at the data. It also would help if would stop treating the doctors' opinions as if this was a legislative process, in which they could be "lobbied" to believe this or that, so you'll go forward 20-30 years, and quote what they said (or claimed to believe) decades after the event, and after my book was published, and try to substitute that as "best evidence." I have news for you: it ain't. These critical witnesses said what they said--to newspaper reporters within days, in the medical reports they wrote, and in their testimony. What I did in BEST EVIDENCE was demonstrate that that record was bifurcated. That what was observed at Parkland by the Dallas doctors was seriously different than what was reported at Bethesda. I also joined that with the clear evidene of interception (i.e., the broken chain of possession on the body) and the FBI report that the Bethesda doctors recognized that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"--and said so, in plain English, in front of two FBI agents, who then included that statement in their report. You have been attempting to "explain it all away" with a series of tendentious arguments concerning psychology and perception. But the facts speak for themselves, and the bifurcated record will not go away. Its an inherent part of the historical record of the Kennedy assassination. I have no doubt that BEST EVIDENE will stand the test of time, and that the answer to "what happened" to the body will lead to the intellectual authors of this crime. And by the way, and getting back to specifics, and before leaving the topic of the wound at the left temple: I ought to mention one other witness, one who I did not include in BEST EVIDENCE because he was not in the room, but who is a very important witness, and that is Dr. Dave Stewart. Stewart is important because he knew Dr. Perry very well, and is a source of information as to what Perry said, and believed, on 11/22 and in the days following. Stewart told the Nashville, Tenn Banner (cira 1967) of the left temporal wound, based not on what he personally saw, but on what he was told (by Perry). I then interviewed him in 1982 (by phone); and then in 1989, Pat Valentino and I flew to Tennessee and did a very detailed (and professionally filmed) interview with him at his home Without getting into the details just now, you can add Stewart to the list of those who believe (in Stewart''s case, because of what he was told by Perry) that JFK was struck from the front, and in the left temple. (Stay tuned). For now, I have one simple request: I wish you would quit saying that the Dallas doctors did not say that there was an exit wound at the back of the head--because that is obviously not true. When you make such statements, you are posting false information on the Internet in a discussion group that is read probably all over the world. I would think that regardless of what theories and hypotheses you entertain about the Kennedy assassination, you would not want to be in the position of spreading false information on such an important matter, especially when it so easily proved to be demonstrably false. DSL 8/17/12; 1:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

See Post # 48 for complete discussion.

DSL NOTE: See post # 48 for complete discussion.

Pat: You keep ignoring the fact that the Dallas doctors are on record--both in interviews conducted within a few days of the assassination, as well as under oath before the Warren Commission--that it was their opinion that a bullet exited from the rear of the head. Let me lay it out here, from BEST EVIDENCE: Are you not aware of the fact that one doctor after another believed that a bullet exited from the rear of Kennedy's skull? And that this pervaded the accounts published in the press in the days immediately following President Kennedy's murder? And what about the testimony of the Dallas doctors in their Warren Commission depositions. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE (Chapter 13, on the head wounding): Quoting from B.E.: Indeed, six Dallas doctors testified the wound in the rear of the head was an exit wound; and a seventh, Dr. Kemp Clark, said it ould be an exit wound, but it was also possible the wound was "tangential." Dr. Jones testified it 'appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull'; (6 WCH 56)); Dr. Perry referred to it as "avulsive"; (6 WCH 11)) Dr. Jenkins, referring to the region as "exploded," said "I would interpret it being a wound of exit" (1 WCH 50) and Dr. Akin said: "I assume that the right oipito-parietal region was the exit." (6 WCH 67) UNQUOTE I then wrote two paragraphs laying out the testimony or public statements of those doctors who joined wound at the front of the throat (which they thought was an entry) with the wound at the back of the head (assumed to be an exit) and who then postulated that a bullet had entered at the President's throat, somehow was deflected up the spinal column, and then exited at the rear of the head. One was Dr. Peters, in my November, 1966 telephone interview with him, as quoted in Chapter 13 of BEST EVIDENCE (see page 317 of the Macmillan or Carrol and Graf edition): "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal olumn, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." Next on the list was Dr. Malcolm Perry. And there I quoted from interviews he gave on Saturday, November 23, to John Geddie of the Dallas Morning News, and Herbert Blak, Medical Editor of the Boston Globe. Quoting these accounts (directly from page 317 of BEST EVIDENCE) --Now quoting: Geddie reported: "The head wound, he [Perry] added, appeared to be 'an exit wound' caused when the bullet passed out." (Dallas Morning News, 11/24/63); To Black, Perry acknowledged it was peculiar that "rather than entering" from behind, the bullet exited "despite the fact [that] the assassin shot from above down on to the President." But he assured Black that the wound he saw on the head was an exit." "We know that the big damage is at the point of exit." He (Perry) offered this explanation: "It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown bak when the bullet or bullets struck him." (Boston Globe, 11/24/63) Now here's my question, Pat Speer: I'm quoting you data from the record, the existing journalistic and testimonial record--and yet you come along, some 48 years later, and simply ignore it, and blithely mistate the record with these glib false statements. Let me go back again, and re-state your false statement: ""None of them described this wound as an entrance wound for a bullet exiting elsewhere on the skull." I think its time you set aside your cherished (and mistaken) beliefs--which apparently affect the way you interpret the record--and just at the data. And by the way, before leaving the topic of the wound at the left temple, I ought to mention one other witness, one who I did not include in BEST EVIDENCE because he was not in the room, but who is a very important witness, and that is Dr. Dave Stewart. Steward knew Perry well, and told the Nashville, Tenn newspaper (cira 1967) of the left temporal wound. I then interviewed him in 1982 (by phone); and then Pat Valentino and did a very detailed (and professionally filmed) interview with him in 1989. Without getting into the details just now, you can add Stewart to the list of those who believe (in Stewart''s case, because of what he was told by Perry) that JFK was struck in the left temple. Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000003371 StartFragment:0000002328 EndFragment:0000003335 For now, I have one simple request: I wish you would stop saying that the Dallas doctors did not say that there was an exit wound at the back of the head--because that is obviously not true. When you make such statements, you are posting false information on the Internet, in a discussion group that is read probably all over the world. I would think that regardless of what theories and hypotheses you entertain about the Kennedy assassination, you would not want to be in the position of spreading false information on such an important matter. DSL 8/16/12; 10:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

There is also the HBO "miniseries" project, according to this item in the Dallas Morning News. Possibly, the "Parkland" movie will be done instead--or perhaps they both will be done. Anybody know? DSL Tom Hanks talks about possible JFK project on HBO by CHRIS VOGNAR / Movies / Dallas Morning News Tom Hanks is always on the lookout for new projects to make through his production company, Playtone. Now Dallas is on the list of his possible destinations. Vincent Bugliosi, the author of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a 1,612-page tome that debunks conspiracy theories to establish that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy, says he optioned the book to Playtone after its 2007 publication. Bugliosi says it’s his understanding that the production team, which also includes actor Bill Paxton, hopes to film a 10-part miniseries and have it air on HBO near the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination, in November 2013. Early last year, Hanks made his first public comment on the project to Time magazine. “We’re going to do the American public a service,” he said. “A lot of conspiracy types are going to be upset. If we do it right, it’ll be perhaps one of the most controversial things that has ever been on TV.” Hanks reiterated his interest during a recent visit to Dallas to promote his new movie, Larry Crowne. But he says it’s not a done deal. “Boy, do we want to do it,” he said. “But there’s really only one way to it, and that’s to have a substantial amount of time so you can go in much, much deeper than ever before and you’re not just repeating what have become the mythical highlights of those four days. That gets to be very expensive, and that gets to be a problem on the corporate level. I can’t say we’re definitely doing it.” Paxton, who was born and grew up in Fort Worth and starred in the Playtone-produced HBO series Big Love, attributes his interest in the project to having accompanied his father to the appearance Kennedy made in downtown Fort Worth, hours before he was killed on Elm Street in Dallas.

Daniel, it was McClelland who blew the whistle regarding the Secret Service's trip to Parkland. He blew the whistle to Bill Burrus on 12-11...and Richard Dudman a week later, in the very article I've cited. What you seem to be missing is that the SS trip to Parkland had nothing to do with the head wound, as no one, at that time, even realized the Parkland doctors described the head wound in a different manner than the Bethesda doctors. The problem at that time was the throat wound. The Parkland doctors had described it as an entrance, in the first press conference, and afterwards. The SS thought they should stop doing this. So Elmer Moore paid Parkland a visit with a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report. McClelland was excited about this, and, apparently, called Burrus. In this context, then, I don't see how you can ignore McClelland's claim he was satisfied no shots came from the front. Dudman was at that time pushing that a shot came through the windshield. He would have been glad to publish McClelland's claim the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown off, should McClelland have claimed as much. As far as the rest of your post, I'm really not sure what you're talking about. McClelland, unlike Crenshaw, was never kicked around by his fellow doctors. He said he thought he saw cerebellum. He never said the doctors who'd said they'd seen cerebellum--but then admitted they could have been mistaken--were lying because they were scared. And therein lies the difference. P.S. Here's a little background on Moore's trip to Parkland. Note that no one mentions the head wound. From patspeer.com, chapter 1b: a 12-13 teletype message from Gordon Shanklin of the Dallas FBI office to Hoover revealed that the FBI still hadn't even read the autopsy report. The message reads "An article appearing in the evening Dallas Texas newspaper prepared by staff writer Bill Burrus dateline Bethesda Maryland reflects a still unannounced autopsy report from the US Naval Hospital reflecting President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet, which had a hard metal jacket, exited through his throat. This does not agree with the autopsy findings at the Bethesda Hospital as reported on page two eight four of the report of SA Robert P. Gemberling at Dallas on December 10, last, which reflects an opening was found in the back, that appeared to be a bullet hole, and probing of this hole determined the distance traveled by this missile was short as the end of the opening could be felt by the examining doctor's finger. The Bureau may want to have Baltimore obtain the unannounced autopsy report from Bethesda, Maryland, and disseminate to the Bureau and Dallas." The Burrus article referenced by Shanklin ran in the 12-12 Dallas-Times Herald. It seems clear the emergency room doctors of Parkland Hospital were his primary source. The records of Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore reflect that he spoke to these doctors on 12-11. On 12-18, one of the few members of the media to smell conspiracy, Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote an article about this friendly visit by the Secret Service to the doctors. It reads: "Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound. After visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear...(the Secret Service) obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his (Kennedy's) neck entered from the front. The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown." Months later, after speaking to one of the Dallas doctors, Dr. Robert McClelland, Mark Lane would relate "the agents had a copy of the autopsy report on their laps but refused to allow the physicians to see it" and that "after a three hour session with the physicians the Secret Service Agents were able to leave the room and to state that the physicians in the Parkland Memorial Hospital all announced and agreed that they were in error when they said that the bullet wound in the throat was an entrance wound." p.p.s. Here's a discussion of McClelland. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas (Note: in this, his earliest statement on the assassination, Dr. McClelland reveals that he was easily confused and prone to speculation. First of all, he gets himself all turned around and mistakenly says there was a wound in the left temple. He says nothing of a wound on the back of the head or behind the ear. As but one head wound was noted at Parkland, and as no competent doctor would mention a wound he did not see while failing to mention the one he did, it seems probable McClelland meant to say this wound was of the right temple, not left. Second of all, he states, without offering any supporting evidence, that the throat wound was a fragment wound. This shows he was prone to speculation. In light of the fact many conspiracy theorists cite McClelland as the most reliable of the Parkland witnesses, McClelland's next statements are even more intriguing. McClelland was the prime source for the 12-18-63 article by Richard Dudman published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in which the Secret Service's visit to the Parkland doctors, and its attempt to get them to agree Kennedy's throat wound was an exit, was first revealed. And yet McClelland told Dudman that after being told of the wound on Kennedy's back "he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Navy Hospital’s explanation of the course of the bullets." And yet he told Dudman "I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." And yet he told Dudman "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front." Repeat...NO reason to suspect any shots came from the front... That's right...in the very article most conspiracy theorists believe first exposed the government's cover-up of Kennedy's wounds, Dr. McClelland, the man they consider the most credible of the Parkland witnesses, spelled out--and made CRYSTAL CLEAR--that he did not think the large head wound he observed was an exit wound on the far back of the head. This is confirmed yet again by the first article on the wounds published in a medical journal. Three Patients at Parkland, published in the January 1964 Texas State Journal of Medicine, was based upon the Parkland doctors' 11-22 reports, and repeated their descriptions of Kennedy's wounds and treatment word for word. Well, almost. In one of its few deviations, it changed Dr. McClelland's initial claim Kennedy was pronounced dead "at 12:55" to his being "pronounced dead at 1:00." This was an obvious correction of an innocent mistake. In what one can only assume was another correction of an innocent mistake, moreover, it re-routed Dr. McClelland's initial claim "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" to the more acceptable "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head." Right side of the head. Not back of the head. While some might wish to believe the writer and/or editor of this article took it upon himself to make this change without consulting Dr. McClelland, and that he'd changed it to fit the "official" story, the fact of the matter is there was NO official story on the head wounds at this point, beyond the descriptions of the wound in the reports of McClelland's colleagues published elsewhere in the article. And these, in sum, described a wound on the back of the head. It seems likely, then, that McClelland himself was responsible for this change. In any event, on March 21, 1964, Dr. McClelland, testified before the Warren Commission. In contrast to his earlier statements, he now claimed: “As I took the position at the head of the table that l have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered ... the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.” Since Kennedy was by all reports lying on his back, it is impossible to understand how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy’s head. It seems likely then that McClelland, as Clark, was confused by the rotation of Kennedy’s skull. Incidentally, McClelland, while insisting that the wound he saw was posterior, would nevertheless come to defend the legitimacy of the autopsy photos, telling the television show Nova in 1988 that ""I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." He has tried to explain this inconsistency. In both his Nova appearance and ARRB testimony he ventured that the back of the head photo depicts sagging scalp pulled over a large occipito-parietal wound. Of course, this assertion is utterly fantastic and unsupported by every book on wound ballistics. Scalp overlying explosive wounds to the skull does not stretch and sag, it tears. No such tears were noted on the back of Kennedy's head at autopsy, and none are shown in the autopsy photos whose legitimacy McClelland defends. Pat, Where do you get the idea that Dr. McClelland was Burrus' source? I interviewed Burrus at length--in person, in New York City--in 1977 or 1978. It was all tape recorded and I spent an hour or more with him, and then spent hours transcribing it Let me assure you that Dr. McClelland was NOT Burrus' source. (Where are you getting that idea from??) Furthermore, the person who was Burrus' source --and I am doing this from memory, today, in 2012--was providing Burrus with authoritative information about the Bethesda autopsy conclusion. The source was either Dr. Clark or, more likely, Dr. Tom Shires. One or the other, and I have a sheaf full of notes about this, and about the identity of a third party who (I learned, from Burrus) knew who the source was, and who I was attempting to contact. (But there were 100 other things going on at the time, and I never did.) In addition, this article was either the same one--or within a day of the one--that reported the curb shot, and raised the possibility that a single bullet passed back to front through Kennedy's neck, and then went on to strike Connally. (Yes, in mid-December, 1963--and that was either in the Dallas Times Herald or the Dallas Morning News. Again, the Single Bullet Theory was already formulated, conceptually, and was being "floated" in this news account). Now, focusing on McClelland. . . : For reasons I do not understand, you are either misreporting or misunderstanding what McClelland (a) told the Warren Commission, when under oath; and (b ) told Dudman and (c ) told me, when I interviewed him, on camera, in 1989. On November 22, McClelland said the President died of a gunshot wound of the left temple. I have always assumed that sentence applied to the bullet entrance wound on JFK's head. (Certainly, he was not referring to an exit wound!) The thrust of the Dudman stories, in mid-December, was that one or more Secret Service agents were visiting Parkland Hospital and showing the Dallas doctors the Bethesda autopsy report, in order to stop them from continuing to state that Kennedy was struck from the front. This is obvious--and its part of the public record. That's what Dudman's story is all about. When under oath during his Warren Commission deposition, McClelland was desribing, in detail, the bullet exit wound at the rear of the President's head. In the fall of 1988, he described the same bullet exit wound when interviewed by Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase in their interview of McClelland for their KRON-TV documentary. Six months later, in 1989, when I (and Pat Valentino) interviewed him, on camera, he described in detail the same bullet exit wound at the rear of JFK's head. You're behaving like a philosopher who is playing games with the English language, because you apparently don't like what's been stated in plain English. In the face of a plethora of evidence that the President's body was intercepted--and the wounds altered--here you are whining and attempting to impeach McClelland's testimony by asserting as a fact that McClelland couldn't have observed what he said he did. From your post: "Since Kennedy was by all lreports lying on his back, it is impoossible to understand how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy's head..." Yet he testified, and quite explicitly, that he could see exactly what he testifed to. Why should anyone care about your hypotheses--and conjecture(s)--about what McClelland could "not have seen" when he testified under oath, in March, 1964, as to what he did in fact see?? For reasons I don't understand, you have spent hundreds of hours of your time writing tendentious posts and text attempting to claim the historical record is something other than it is. Of course, you're entitled to do this--but I hope people reading your posts understand the game you are playing. One other thing: for anyone who wants a vivid description of the wound at the back of President Kennedy's head, just see Chapter 13, of Best Evidence, and the account of Dr. Peters, who described to me, in November, 1966, his vivid recollection that (a) it was size of a "hen's egg" and (b ) how he could see the occipital lobes of the brain resting on the foramen magnum (the hole in the base of the skull, through which the spinal cord enters and goes to the brain. Here's my quesiton to you, Pat Speer: Why to you keep playing these games, and ignoring the accounts of the witnesses who were there, and attempting to substitute, instead, your various theories, conjectures, and hypotheses as to why they couldn't have seen what they testified they observed? Do you really believe your conjectures about what this or that witness could "not have seen" really trump the sworn statements of what they did in fact see? DSL 8/10/12; 12:10 AM Los Angeles, California

I am talking about the images we see on Zapruder frame 313 which show ejected bone from the head area. Surely you are not going to say that the people who altered the film added the ejected bone in order to cover up the fact that someone operated on the top of the presidents head sometime between Parkland and Bethesda? The people who altered the Zapruder film had complete control of the imagery--iinsofar as that was possible given the technology of 1963. This means that they were able to (a) delete frames (and, in principal, at least) delete any "event" they chose to; and (b ), directly responiding to your question, they could pictorially edit any frame, or sequence of frames. This means, with regard to the head shot, that the details of the wounding could be altered. In writing this post, I'm not writing a "master's thesis" as to how such film editing is done, and exactly what equipment was employed. I'm simply asserting my belief that this is what was done. A small group of fully qualified professionals altered the film, and were given the "World War 3" (cock and bull) cover story: i.e., that is this 'n that weren't done, and done quickly, there could be a war with Russia, etc. etc. If you've read Pig on a Leash, you know that my first exposure to all this occurred in November, 1971, when I went to Dallas with the purpose of interviewing about five of the critical car stop witneses. I am sorry that the film technology available today didn't exist at that time, to record those interviews on camera, because--as Marshall McLuhan said decades ago," The medium is the message." But I was there, I conduted these interviews, and they left no doubt in my mind that the car stopped (momentarily) during the shooting. Today I know more about this situation, and will be writing more about it in the future. As I have said many tims (and will repeat here), the most critical evidence in this case--the autopsy and the Zapruder film--were altered so as to present a false picture of what happened to all official investigating bodies, and to the world. BEST EVIDENCE deals with the interception and alteration of the President's body which is at the heart of the false autopsy. Much more will be published about that situation in the future, and all I'm saying right now is that a comparable situation exists with regard to the Zapruder film. DSL

The reasons you think we should believe McClelland saw a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head are the very reasons I don't believe he saw such a wound: his earliest statements. "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. McClelland's report on the death of President Kennedy, written on 11-22-63. "I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." Dr. Robert McClelland, as quoted by Richard Dudman in the 12-18-63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If you know of any statements by McClelland made prior to his Warren Commission testimony, in which he indicated he saw an exit wound on the far back of Kennedy's head, I'd appreciate your bringing them to my attention. Pat, "gunshot of the left temple" does not specifiy the direction; in fact, in plain and simple language, the closest meaning would be: "gunshot wound to the left temple." As for Dudman's dispatch, this is three weeks after the assassination, and we are dependent upon Dudman's accurate reporting, how he stated the question,etc. Recall Pat, that the Dallas doctors to the best of our knowledge were not aware of any wound in the back on the day of the assassination. Carrico did a manual examination underneath his clothing and found nothing. Rather, the witnesses to the anterior throat wound were unanimous in describing it as having the appearance of an entrance wound, at least that day. Then the Secret Service came and presented Perry with the autopsy report that it was an exit wound. I am rather certain this is prior to Dec. 18. Depending on the dates when pressure was exerted on the Dallas doctors to change their original opinion, McClelland's utterance to Dudman may simply reflect that pressure, and a desire to avoid controversy. That he gave the WC such a careful description of the wound in the back of the head I think is sufficient to challenge your interpretation of his report. McClelland is still alive. He has spoken on what he witnessed many times. He has made it quite clear that he did not see an entrance on the left temple, and that he, in fact, did not see an "entrance" anywhere on Kennedy's head. He saw ONE head wound and only one head wound. His testimony indicated that this wound was toward the back of Kennedy's head. And yet prior to his testimony, McClelland had told Dudman--whose reporting on this has never been questioned--that he'd seen no evidence the shot came from the front. This was no one time thing, mind you. McClelland has repeated many times since that he didn't believe the fatal head shot was fired from the front until he saw the Zapruder film, and noticed the back-and-to-the-left motion of Kennedy's head. McClelland's statements, taken in sum, do not support that he saw a gaping hole low on the back of Kennedy's head. Your post(s) are very misleading. McClelland talked about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head in this Warren Commision testimony (which is so detailed that JKK researcher Wallace Milam used to refer to it as a "gift to history"); in his interview with Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase, in the fall of 1988 (in a major TV documentary in which I was the medical consultant); in the Spring 1989 filmed interview filmed by me (and Pat Valentino) in which he affirmed the accuracy of the so-called "McClelland drawing." So. . .what on earth are you talking about? As to his original written statement that JFK died of a gunshot wound of the left temple, the only reasonable inference is that, in that document, written on the afternoon of 11/22/63, he was talking of an entry bullet wound which he believed he saw. Admittedly, he did not mention the gaping exit wound at the back of the head in that original written statement; but he certainly was NOT talking about a bullet exit wound in the left temple (or do you believe that is what he was reporting?) As to the exit wound at the back of the head, and what McClelland said about that: I don't know what venue you are taking your quotes from, but they are contrary to (a) McClelland's Warren Commission testimony; (b ) his 1988 interview with Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase; and (c ) my own Spring 1989 filmed interview. Stanhope, you may know (or perhaps you don't) was the producer of the award winning Watergate coverage, during the Cronkite era at CBS-TV network. After the interviews of the key Best Evidence witnesses, he made a public statement in SanFrancisco that David Lifton's book and video presented "courtoom quality evidence" that President Kennedy's body had been intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda. I truly to not have the time to waste debating what has been established decades ago. Only by putting on some peculiar lense is it possible for you to filter the data so that: (a) There was not a gaping exit wound at the back of the head (despite McClelland's WC testimony, and the filmed interviews I have cited) (b ) McClelland, who was a key witness to all this, and made clear that he was, in a number of venues, said the opposite (!). Have some respect for the data, please. Have you bothered to watch the TV documentary which features his observations that there was a bullet exit wound at the back of JFK's head,and that he saw the cerebellum exposed and damaged. . .? Do you think he made all that up?? DSL 8/16/12; Spelling errors corrected (rather belatedly; sorry. DSL.)

Daniel, Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was. Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington. I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean. The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it. I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination. James Some comments: Re your question: "Daniel, Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was." I'm pretty sure she said this in an ARRB questioning, but I can definitely tell you that she said it to me, and quite specifically, in a 1989 filmed interview. If I can get all my stuff properly transferred, and my Website completed, I'll be sure to include that excerpt. Its quite dramatic: the wound was so localized, at the back of the head, that Dr. Perry had to move the head to one side, so that she could even see it. Re Harrison Livingston and Nurse Bowron: When Bowron testified (in her WC deposition) she said she saw just one wound (besides the throat wound)--the one at the back of the head. She was asked a second time if she saw any other wound. Her answer was "no." Exactly how Livingstone got her to answer otherwise, some decades later, I have no idea. But, in evaluating this situation, you cannot ignore the almost pathological hatred that Livingstone exhibited, towards me and my work, actually leaving death threats on my phone answering machine, writing me bizarre letters which also contained threats, and then suing me for $50 million dollars, claiming I was part of a conspiracy to murder him. Need I say more?. . . I don't know what Dr. McClelland said in later years, but he clearly believed, in November 1963, that a bullet exited from the wound he described at the back of the head; repeated essentially the same thing when he testified (1964); and certainly said that to me and Pat Valentino when we conducted a detailed filmed interview in 1989. The problem with this case is that many folks said one thing in 1963/1964, and then, years later, read books or articles, formed opinions about what happened, and then those opinions affected their own recollections. Always its best to deal with the earliest recorded recollection. That's true in a simple auto accident, and its also true in the case of the Kennedy assassination. Two other matters: Re the Sibert-O'Neill quote about surgery: you ought to read Sibert's ARRB deposition, and the notes he himself made in connection with our telephone call in 1990 (ARRB document MD-216). Google Sibert for the ARRB deposition. There's no question as to "who said it"--it was Commander Humes, and that was specified in documents released under FOIA and sent to me back in 1978. (See Chapter 12 of Best Evidence). Re the Zapruder film: I personally believe the Zapruder film (and other films) were collected and altered, and the full account of when and where that was done will become public in the next few years. It was indeed complex, it involved a major effort, and some top people were involved, all believing they were involved in something that had to be done "to prevent W W III"--in other words, the usual "WW 3" cock and bull story that was utilzed by LBJ on Earl Warren, Richard Russell, and others. Re Costella: he is a fine scientist. As for Fetzer,. . the less said, the better. The man subscribes to such things as "no planes" hit the World Trade Center, that the moon landings were all faked, and associates with people who are Holocaust denialists and who believe there were swimming pools at Auschwitz. Yuk! DSL 7/30/12; 4 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Re: "This is when the large hole in the top of the head was created." The problem with this hypothesis is that there is no such hole according to the Parkland Hospital medical reports and testimony. And, fyi, when I interviewed Dr. Ronald Jones, on camera, he was particlarly strong, if not vociferous, on this point--and Doug Horne has noted that he was the same when interviewed by the ARRB. The supposed "hole at the top of the head" is something definitely present at Bethesda (and particularly evident when the scalp was pulled back, at least according to Boswell) but it was certainly not present at Parkland. DSL 7/20/12 3:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

If you cannot "go there," then you are essentially saying, in advance, that you cannot deal with the most basic and most elementary of deception mechanisms: the deliberate falsification of evidence to manufacture a false story about the murder of the President. If you cannot "go there," then that means that you are willing to be duped by anyone who places a rifle near a window, or a bullet on a stretcher, or alters a wound on a body--or, yes, screws around with (i.e., fakes) a motion picture film. If you can't deal with the concept of falsified evidence, and pursue data that in fact indicates such falsification, then you will never get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination. Unearthing the evidence that the key evidence in this case was altered does not give one a license to invent "any old 'solution' " to the Kennedy assassination, but forces one to reason carefully and to learn to distinguish between the false and the real; between fact and artifact. If the critical evidence in this case --i.e., the autopsy--was falisified, then the notion that Lee Oswald shot the president is nothing more than a cover story manufactured in advance by plotters, promulgated by the Dallas Police Department, swallowed whole by the FBI, and then sanctified by the Warren Commission. You say you don't want to "go there." I'd advise you to rethink that position, because, when it comes to finding the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963, that's where the true lies. DSL

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept Robert Caro's cavalier statement that “whatever the full story of the assassination may be, Lyndon Johnson had anything to do with it.” Just who does he think he is kidding? And just what does Caro mean when he refers to "the full story of the assassination," and what it "may be" (apparently referring to some unspecified divergene from the official account, as presented to the nation, and the world, by the Warren Commission?) President Kennedy’s body was the most important evidence in the case. Without getting into a lengthy debate about the wounds (and the plethora of evidence that the wounds were altered, prior to autopsy), all one has to know--in making an informed judgement on Caro's rather cavalier statement--is the following, based on the sequence of arrivals of these two critical items of evidence at Bethesda Naval Hospital, data that has been in the public record for years: (a) The arrival of Kennedy’s body (at the Bethesda morgue), and. . . (b ) The arrival, at the same morgue, of the luxurious coffin in which it originally reposed, when it left Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The "arrival sequence"--of the body, and the coffin in which it began its journey from Dallas--tells a story that cannot be ignored. Re (a): President Kennedy’s body, the most important evidence in this murder case, arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:35 PM EST. It arrived in a shipping casket, inside of which was a body bag. Regarding the time of arrival: This is confirmed not only by the report of Roger Boyajian, the NCOIC of the Marine Security Detail at the Bethesda autopsy—a document unearthed by the ARRB (Google "MD-236" and "ARRB")—but also by much other chronological evidence as originally published in BEST EVIDENCE (January, 1981) and reconfirmed by the ARRB (1995-1998): —e.g.: (1) the account of Dennis David (originally published in Chapter 25 of B.E. 1981)) who witnessed the arrival of the black hearse containing the shipping casket, a good 20 minutes prior to the arrival of the naval ambulance, and the accounts of others. . (2) the late Jerrol Custer, the X-ray tech (See Chapter 25, B.E.) (3 ) Commander Humes himself, who told the ARRB that he first saw the President’s body at 6:45 PM (See Humes ARRB deposition) (4) Donald Rebentisch, who, back in January, 1981, provided me an account similar to that of Dennis David, and which I included in all the following editions of Best Evidence, in a “1982 epilogue.” Re (b ): The arrival of the Dallas casket at Bethesda Naval Hospital The naval ambulance carrying the Dallas coffin (plus Jacqueline Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) arrived at Bethesda at 6:55 P.M. That is simply a fact of the public record. EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT LOVE FIELD? Let’s now cycle back to Dallas, earlier in the afternoon, when the President’s body arrived at the side of Air Force One, parked at Love Field, in the cream colored hearse from the O’Neal Funeral home. The casket left Parkland Hospital a few minutes after 2 P.M., and arrived at the side of Air Force One at 2:14 PM, CST. With the assistance of a contingent of Secret Service agents, led by Roy Kellerman (and in an event that was photographed by White House Photographer Cecil Stoughton), the Dallas coffin, containing the President’s body was placed aboard Air Force One at 2:18 PM, CST. At the time, Lyndon Johnson was at the back of the plane. (I know that for a fact based on interviews with Air Force personnel, which occurred since the publication of B.E.). One said he was “supervising”; another, that he actually was “hands on” when it came to carrying the Dallas coffin. LBJ told those aboard the plane that the flight had to be delayed because “Bobby” told him he should be sworn in –a “fact” which RFK vehemently denied to his aides. The swearing in occurred at 2:38 CST. Air Force One took off at 2:47 PM CST. So. . what happened? Unless one wishes to subscribe to the notion that the U.S. Government is run by some GS-13’s who were Secret Service agents (and who didn’t know, or “see” what happened) or that there were magicians aboard Air Force One, then Lyndon Johnson had to know how the most important evidence in this case—his predecessor’s body—which was in a coffin that was placed aboard AF-1 at 2:18 P.M., CST was not in that coffin when the plane took off at 2:47 PM CST (and when it was offloaded from AF-1 at about 6:08 P.M., EST). IMHO: There is a direct line connecting the kind of dishonesty and fraud attendant to “Ballot Box 13” which was so central to Lyndon Johnson first entering the Senate, in 1948, and the sort of trickery and fraud that swirls around this particular mystery, so central to the integrity of JFK's body at autopsy and the elevation o Johnson to the Oval Office-–the mystery being the exact circumstances surrounding the fact that, based on the sequence of arrivals (enumerated above), President Kennedy’s body was in the Dallas coffin when it was placed aboard AF-1, at 2:18 CST, but was not in the coffin when it was offloaded from AF-1 shortly after 6 P.M. EST, at Andrews Air Force Base. Ducking this issue by hiding behind the statement that “. . .whatever the full story of the assassination may be Lyndon Johnson had anything to do with it. . .” is absurd. And just what does Caro have in mind when he provides such a major loophole for himself when he writes ". . .whatever the full story of the assassination may be. . ."? ". . .may be. . ."? It is the ultimate act of denial to attempt to bypass this issue by focusing on Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to get the Kennedy civil rights bill passed, in the days and weeks following, constantly invoking the martyred dead President, while ignoring the fact that JFK's body, which was in the coffin placed aboard Air Force One at 2:18 CST, was not in the coffin when it was offloaded at Andrews Air Force Base at about 6:08 PM, EST. DSL 7/29/12; 5:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

This post is rather superficial and highly inaccurate. First of all, I have nothing to do with Morningstar, or his theories about Tippit. Nada. But, moving on from there. . . As to wound alteration, BEST EVIDENCE lays it out quite clearly. The Dallas treating physicians –in their reports—describe wounds that are entirely different than those at Bethesda, both in the area of the neck and head. None of that has changed, and it is an immutable part of the existing record. Focusing on the head: All one needs to do is compare, for example, the description of the head wound in the autopsy (10 x 17 cm, per the Boswell diagram, or what he drew for the ARRB, when he testified), or by Dr. Finck, in his 1965 report to Dr. Blumberg, which states the wound extended all the way to the front, and he names the frontal bone) with the relatively modest sized head wound described by McClelland, Carrico (5 by 7 cm) , or even Jenkins (cerebellum “protruded”, etc.) and the difference is obvious. In the area of the throat wound, the same “before” vs. “after” situation exists: “2-3 cm” (per Dr. Perry) versus Humes “7-8cm” with “widely gaping irregular edges.” It matters not what some of these people said decades later, when they tried to wriggle off the hook. The record stands. Moreover, and as to Humes’ state of knowledge: there was nothing subtle about the messed up condition of Kennedy’s body when it arrived. Humes knew the head wound was altered. It was an atrocious sloppy job, and that’s why his immediate response—written down by the two FBI agents present (even though they apparently didn’t not realize the implications)—was that it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” (Sibert and O’Neill FBI report). For further data, read Sibert’s September, 1997 testimony before the ARRB, which confirms what he told me in a detailed 1990 interview: that he would “swear on a stack of bibles” that the doctor said there had been surgery. That’s where he says: “that’s haunted me for years, this surgry of the head. This part, back on the back [of the head[ there. . you could like right in there.” In notes he made at the time, he wrote: “"Brain had been removed from head cavity." (Source: ARRB document MD 216) This of course was confirmed when I first interviewed Paul O’Connor, who was present (and helped) when the shipping casket arrived at Bethesda and JFK’s body was removed from the body bag inside. (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, for a verbatim account of my very first interview of O’Connor, in August, 1979). Uninformed statements talking about “plastic” surgery (“ I will quote sources if pressed,” you write knowingly, and ominously) that come out of the mouth of Posner, or Dr. Wecht are no substitute for careful analysis and proper attention to the evidence. Furthermore, Chapter 18 of BEST EVIDENCE lays out, in detail, just how seriously and violent was the smashing and bashing that must have occurred, to remove the skull cap. Specifically, I am referring here to the stellate fracture pattern, contra-coup injury on the base of the brain (reported accurately by Humes); the “crushed vomer”, and the evidence of a severed spinal cord. Instead of buying into oversimplified name-calling, and false association with Morningstar, perhaps you’d be better off re-reading and understanding the detailed analysis set forth in BEST EVIDENCE. DSL 7/29/12; 5 pm Los Angeles, California

I agree with Mencken. Completely. About five months the Warren Report was released (in September 1964), when I learned that the Zapruder film showed the President's head snappin violently backwards in response to the fatal shot, I was not just concerned, but angry and ticked off at the blatant coverup of a most basic fact: that President Kennedy appeared to have been struck in the head from the front. Although my reasons for believing so have changed, nothing has changed that basic fact. DSL DSL

I don't know what C D Jackson arranged with Marina (via Isaac Don Levine) but, as events played out, Marina made her contract with Priscilla McMillan. I forget the details of how Priscilla McMillan out manuevered Levine (et al); I think it was a matter of her just flying down to Teas, knocking on Marina's door, getting to now her, etc. However it happened, Priscilla ended up getting the exclusive contract with marina, worked with her intensively, and the book was published in 1977. DSL

Oh, sorry...but seen with a fresh mind... To me it is proof for a chain reaction: the Lincoln came almost to a halt (quote Clint Hill, and witnessed by fifty other persons). Therefore every other car in the motorcade was forced to slow down, and the cars in front of the press bus, the press bus itself cam to a complete halt. None of the drivers of any car ever said, he decided to to stop out of the blue...it was a forced stop, used by some photographers to jump out of their press cars to took some pics... Your explanation reminds me of the explanation of the "vanished left turn" in the Zapruder-film: you guys say, it is, because Zapruder decided to stop filming. Zapruder never said a single word about such a decision while the motorcade passed by... .. KK To avoid confusion, just focus on the Presidential limousine.I interviewed Bill and Gayle Newman in November, 1971. I went to their home, and spent an evening with them, with my SONY TC-800 recorder on the table between us. I was very aware, by that date, that quite a few witnesses said the car stopped, and that's one of the key reasons I made this trip to Dallas. Newman said the car stopped, and he was unequivocal about it. After he gave his account, I told him that the Zapruder film "at the national archives" did not show any car stop. He responded with words to the effect: I don't care what any film at the Archives shows. I was there. The car stopped. This interview was conducted in November 1971. I don't care what Newman may have said years later. I interviewed him in November, 1971, 25 years before the Internet and years before the Zapruder film was first shown on national TV (March, 1975). You can set aside the issue of whether cars "later in the motorcade" topped because of a chain reaction. Newman was sanding riht by the President's limousine; and was adamant that it stopped. DSL

Its interesting that these items are still around. As a matter of general background: this article was originally written in the period June/July, 1966, when I was hired on a temporary staff basis by Ramparts Magazine, and lived in San Francisco for a brief while, for the specific purpose of writing this article. It was then "final edited" in late October/early November 1966, and was published as the main feature in the UCLA Daily Bruin on November 22, 1966, the third anniversary of the assassination; and then in Ramparts Magazine in January, 1967. Here's what's important about "The Case for Three Assassins" (and the full story can be found in BEST EVIDENCE, by looking up the four major references to it in the index to any volume of BEST EVIDENCE, under the entry "Hinkle", who was the Editor in Chief at Ramparts). First of all, this was my first published foray into the Kennedy assassination, and, when originally drafted, was based upon research into the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, which I had purchased in May, 1965. My original introduction to the Kennedy assassination occurred as a consequence of meeting Ray Marcus, in either late 1964 or early 1965, and we had many conversations about the case. What impressed me the most--having been a physics major at Cornell--was the notion that the Zapruder film showed President Kennedy's head moving backwards in response to the fatal shot, whereas the supposed assassin was supposed to have been located behind the motorcade. (And as to the notion that this was the result of a "neuromuscular reaction," that was as invalid then as it is now). By the Spring of 1966, and viewing "conspiracy" as the "number of assassins," I was aware that there were two types of arguments that could be made against the Warren Report. The first pertained to the Single Bullet Theory; the second, to the matter of the backward headsnap on the Zapruder film. If the first were valid (i.e.,if the single bullet theory was wrong) then that would place a "second assassin" behind the president; if the second were valid, i.e., if the backward headsnap were truly an indicator of a frontal shot, that would place a "second assassin" to the front. Joining these two arguments together, I came up with the title "The Case for Three Assassins". SECOND: I then set out to find a physicist who would be quoted on the backward snap of the President's head. That is all described in Chapter 2 of Best Evidence. I met for a good hour with Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynmann, at Cal Tech (we had a mutual friend); and that meeting is also described in chapter 2 of B.E. He focused on the 312-313 (forward) movement--which I had not known about until that meeting. In any event, it was clear that he did not want to become embroiled in this "political" controversy. Subsequently, I found a UCLA physics professor, Dr. James Riddle, who was more than happy to argue that the backwards motion of JFK's head, as seen on the Z film, was excellent evidence o a shot from the front. In a shooting gallery, he said, "the little ducks fall away from you, not towards you" (from memory). THIRD: In connection with "Part 2" of the article, which focused on a shot from the front, The Case for Three Assassins presented a fairly complete (and highly accurate) compilation of all witnesses who thought a shot came from the front (i.e., the grassy knoll). FOURTH: At the time this article was written, I was unaware that so many witnesses said the car stopped, and that (a) both the forward motion and (b ) the rapidity of the backward motion, was the result of editing of the Zapruder film, and NOT the simple consequence of a bullet striking JFK's head from the front (which is my present belief). Those insights didn't come until late 1969, and the interested reader is referred to my essay "Pig on a Leash" (found in the Fetzer anthology, HOAX, re the Z film). FIFTH: On October 23, 1966, when I was back in Los Angeles, and involved (over the telephone) with polishing up the article for publication, I made the discovery of the first evidence that President Kennedy's wounds had been altered, prior to autopsy. Specifically, it was on October 22/23 of 1966 that I made the discovery that the FBI Report of the autopsy, written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, had the statement describing the opening of Kennedy's coffin, wherein they state that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." (The word "surgery of the head area," in that context, refers to pathological surgery to remove the skull cap, at autopsy, and not "clinical surgery" or "hospital surgery" done to save someone's life--commonly referred to as "brain surgery"--when someone is a patient in a hospital.) That discovery is described in considerable detail in Chapter 7 of Best Evidence (titled, "Breakthrough"). I was blown away by the notion that anyone would mess with Kennedy's body prior to autopsy, but it was perfectly logical and explained not only the differences in the wound descriptions between Parkland Hospital and Bethesda, but also why the Bethesda doctors (according to FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill) were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. On Monday, October 24, 1966, I had the lengthy meeting with UCLA Professor Wesley Liebeler, who had been on the staff of the Warren Commission, and confronted him with my discovery of that passage in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, as well as the basic paradigm shift to which it led: that fundamental differences of opinion between the Dallas and Bethesda observations were not the result of either group of doctors either lying, or being incompetent, but because the wounds on the body were different--i.e., that the wounds had been altered between the time of the observtions of the Parkland doctors (circa 12:45-1:20 PM, CST) and the observations of the Bethesda doctors (which, officially at least, commenced with the start of the Bethesda autopsy at 8 pm EST). That is all described in great detail in Chapter 9, of BEST EVIDENCE: "October 24, 1966: A Confrontation with Liebeler." As described in Chapter 9, Liebeler was astonished and dumbfounded that there was evidence in the record that indicated the President's wounds had been altered, prior to autopsy. He knew exactly what that meant, and grasped the implications immediately. For those interested in his reaction, read chapter 9. One memorable event was his calling Arlen Specter on the phone, and reading him the passage from the Sibert and O'Neill report. Specter hadn't known about it either. As Liebeler emerged from a private office where he had gone to make a telephone call to Arlen Specter, Liebeler described to me Specter's reaction (at the time): "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." QUOTE, UNQUOTE. Those were his exact words, describing Specter's response, and I quoted them in Best Evidence. The main point I want to make is that, despite these new insights (which I found personally frightening, and kept to myself), Ramparts associate editor Dave Welsh and I kept up the process, which went on for hours, by long distance phone (between me in Los Angeles, and Welsh in San Francisco) of editing and polishing "The Case for Three Assassins," but, because of these discoveries, I knew that the basic thrust of the article was outdated even before it was published. I was very careful, in this "re-write" phase, to make sure that the text would "stand the test of time" when my "body alteration" thesis would be published--having no idea, of course, that that would take place fifteen years later. In other words, starting in late October,1966, I had undergone a basic paradigm shift. I had the basic understanding, by October 24, 1966, that the Kennedy assassination "conspiracy" was not about how many shooters there were on Dealey Plaza, but whether the most basic evidence in the case, the body of President Kennedy, had been altered prior to autopsy. That was the key: that bullets had been removed, and wounds altered, PRIOR TO the Bethesda autopsy, which began at 8 pm on the night of 11/22/63. So "The Case for Three Assassins" was simply a stepping stone along the way to the point where I was fluent enough in the medical evidence to have understood the importance of what was written, in plain English, in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report of the autopsy, and made the discoveries that I did. As anyone who has read BEST EVIDENCE knows, Professor Liebeler's reaction was beyond astonishment. Because of the public appearances he had made, in which he had defended the Warren Report (e.g., a speech at Stanford University earlier in October 1966), he was very aware of the various problems with the autopsy protocol, and had an "explanation" for each and every one of them. But now, for the first time, he realized that this simple explanation--that the body had been altered--explained everything. As he told WC attorney Joseph Ball, in a phone call he made in my presence on 10/24/66, "Joe,. . did yhou ever get the feeling that we were being led down the garden path?" (I believe that I included that quote, too, in either chapter 9 or 10 of Best evidence). Liebeler told me he wanted to write a memorandum to Chief Justice Warren (and every other member of the Commission, and the staff) pointing to this major flaw in their investigation; specifically, by spelling out the fact that there was evidence indicating the autopsy had been falsified. This is all described and laid out in Chapter 10 of BEST EVIDENCE, "The Liebeler Memorandum." Liebeler, I, and two of his top UCLA student assistants (one of whom co-founded Jacoby and Myers) met several times in connection with drafting that memo, which is today at NARA. That memo was dated November 8, 1966, and went out on November 16. It went to every member of the WC, the entire WC staff, the White House, and Robert Kennedy (via his attorney, Burke Marshall). Copies of Liebeler's memo are in Allen Dulles' papers at Princeton University, in Russell's papers in Georgia, and at the Ford Library. It is interesting to compare the various copies to see what marginalia were made by the reader, and on which page. Its my impression that not everybody understood the import of those words in the FBI report, or the sub-text that, to me, was rather evident in Lieb eler's memo: that if this FBI report was true, then the most basic evidence in the case had been falsified. I have reason to believe that Robert Kennedy read, and understood the implications of my discovery, and will be writing about this in the future. Within days of the initial discovery, I was on the phone with FBI Agent Sibert, and with Commander Humes, and with the Dallas doctors. All of this is laid out in BEST EVIDENCE. In particular, I read the critical passage to Sibert. In a phone call that I recorded, he said "The report stands." When I called Dr. Malcolm Perry and inquired about the lenth of the trachetomy incision, he immediately responded, "2-3 cm" (which was quite different than the "6.5 cm" with "widely gaping irregular edges" (reported by Humes, at Bethesda) or the "7 - 8cm" reported by Humes, under oath before the WC). Perry's estimate of 2-3 cm was echoed by other doctors, who I called in the days following. The main point I wanted to make was that "The Case for Three Assassins" --published as a 30,000 word detailed essay in the January, 1967 of Ramparts Magazine--presented an organized way of looking at the medical evidence in the Kennedy case that was "pre-body alteration"--i.e., if one's goal was to define conspiracy as "the number of assassins." But in terms of addressing the underlying problem--which was the falsification of the medical evidence--that is represented by my work, BEST EVIDENCE, published in January, 1981. By that time, of course, I not only had a far more detailed understanding of the alteration of the wounds--both in the area of the head and neck--between Dallas and Bethesda, I also had two other things: first of all, I had basic FBI documents, obtained under the FOIA, that the Sibert and O'Neill statement about surgery represented an FBI report on what Commander Humes had stated, aloud, at the time of autopsy. Inother words, it was evidence of "an oral statement" made by the autopsy surgeon, at the time of autopsy, In addition, and as a result of much research, I had the basic elements of the case for covert interception; i.e., that the President's body did NOT make an uninterrupted journey from Dallas to Bethesda; i.e., that it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; that it left in a ceremonial coffin, but arrived in a shipping casket. All of that is spelled out in the chapters of Best Evidence starting with Chapter 25, the first published account of Dennis David, who was Chief of the day at Bethesda, on the night of 11/22, and who knew that the body was delivered in a black hearse, at the rear of Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the arrival of the Navy ambulance, containing Jackie Kennedy, RFK, and the Dallas casket, at the front (at about 6:55 pm EST). Recapping the "difference" between "The Case for Three Assassins" and Best Evidence: These are two entirely different ways of looking at the Kennedy case. Unfortunately, many people have really not progressed beyond the more primitive way of looking at the case. Conspiracy in the JFK case is not about "counting assassins"; it is about the deliberate falsification of the evidence, by removing bullets and altering the wounds contained in the body of President Kennedy, after his death. The body of President Kennedy (as would be the body of any deceased, in a gunshot case) is tantamount to a "diagram" of the shooting. By altering the wounds, or removing bullets, that diagram is changed. The falsification of the autopsy was an integral part of the plan to murder the President. Although it was not carried out as originally planned (and I'll have more to say about that in a future writing), it was planned in advance to falsify the autopsy as part of the plot to murder the President. Vincent Bugliosi cannot grasp that fact--and probably never will (and neither can someone like Jim DiEugenio). But at least DiEugenio understands that the autopsy was in fact falsified in this case. Bugliosi cannot even get that far, much less that autopsy falsification was planned in advance. That's one of the reasons why (he thinks) he has "57 reasons" why LHO is guilty; and why, having played "prosecutor" in the televised version of the trial, in the mid-1980s, he continues to see Lee Oswald as Charles Manson. Bugliosi simply cannot get past the notion that the autopsy in this case was not just imperfect, but deliberately falsified. And that the Bethesda autopsy report simply records the appearance of a body with wounds that had been altered--i.e., that the President's body was, at the time of autopsy, a medical forgery. (Well,l that is his problem. And all the hundreds of pages of writing, done by Dale Myers, under a contract with Bugliosi and his publisher, and which appears basically intact in "Reclaiming History" is not going to change the basic fact that his entire case, like that of the Warren Commission Report, is based on a foundation of sand. Because the autopsy was falsified.) Bottom line (and here I am recapping my views as expressed in Best Evidence): this was not an "after the fact" coverup; rather, it was part of the original design of the plot to murder the president, and alter the wounds, so as to tell a false story of Kennedy's death, and improperly link "Oswald's rifle" to the crime (as the murder weapon). And that is why any establishment lawyer can yell and howl, "But the 'best evidence' in this case points to Oswald as the killer!" Yes, it does. But that's because the "best evidence"--President Kennedy's body--was altered prior to autopsy. In other words, the President's body, at the time of autopsy, was tantamount to a medical forgery. That's where those critical words in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report--that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull" --ultimately lead. Of course, there was more to this deception than merely "altering the body", important though that is; and those who are interested in some of the other implications are advised to read Chapter 14 of Best Evidence, to get a sense of how this deception played out in real time. More another time. DSL

That is a far cry from what Jim said. But again, you get benefit of the doubt because of the language barrier. But I'll try and be perfectly clear. The following two posts alone should be enough to indicate that Francois has issues best dealt with by a psychologist. In this first one, he is full of praise for Lifton: In the second, Lifton is cast as a purveyor of nonsense - someone to be despised and then forgotten about. If you cannot see that these posts have a schizoid quality, then maybe you should tag along with Francois when he books his appointment. I couldn't agree more with Greg Parker. I spent about 15 minutes, perhaps more, with Carlier, when he pigeon-holed me at the 1996 Lancer Conference. My advice: steer clear. And its not because of any disagreement over ideas. Its that he's anything but wyswyig. DSL