David Lifton

This part of your post brings to mind the questioning of Buell Frazier by Bugliosi in the mock trial. I don't have the transcript in front of me, but to paraphrase, Bugliosi asks Frazier if Oswald and Lovelady look similar. Frazier says not really, and adds that Lovelady is short and stocky and LHO is taller and thinner. He goes on to say the only similarity is they both have receding hairlines. That observation throws a bit of a wrench into Lovelady being brought in due to similarity in appearance with the suspect. Also, just from memory, Danny Arce said he was taken to the Police Dept. to make a statement, so he may have been one of the individuals that accompanied Lovelady. Richard. . .I agree. And as soon as I learned (from Backes, and Gary Mack, and another researcher) that there were actually DPD reports (Senkel, and Brown) reporting how several TSBD employees were brought in, I immediately reconsidered (and publicly retracted) my position that Lovelady was there merely because o a similarity of appearance. (Cinque then jumped back in and said I was "eating crow". Typical of him.) But do note: those DPD reports (about bringing in employees) do not mention Lovelady. (Maybe there is such a report; but he's not mentioned in the report of Senkel or Brown). One other matter: those interested in the various DPD employees should carefully examine the higher numbered Willis Slides . Willis #8 shows Bonnie Ray Wiliams and Jarman. Willis #11 shows at least 3 "men in suits" (what researcher William Weston used to call "The Calm Men"). There may be much more info tucked away in these slides, if one examines them carefully. DSL

[...] "... why was Lovelady at the DPD, prior to the arrival of Oswald? It now appears that he was brought there with "others" and I'd like to know by whom, and who conducted the interrogation. The hypothesis I posited is that the same "resemblance" which has caused so much trouble (vis a vis the issue of whether he was "the man in the doorway") may have caused him to be picked up early and brought in for interrogation, based on an incomplete and faulty profile of the pre-selected patsy. If Lovelady was brought in for an innocent reason, then that conjecture would be wrong. But its still not clear to me why Lovelady was in the Dallas Police "interrogation room" at that early hour. " (emphasis added by T. Graves) [...] David, In the interest of being as precise as possibe, was Lovelady filmed in the "Interview Room", the "Interrogation Room", or in the hallway outside one of those two rooms? Thanks, --Tommy Fact is, I don't know. In my post(s), I passed on the information about the description of the area as furnished in an email from Gary Mack. Other than the fact that, around 1972/73 (when working on Executive Action), I came across this footage of Oswald being brought into the DPD and being marched by Lovelay, this has really not been my "speciality." But. . I have always been intereted in understanding why Lovelady lied and said e was wearing a red and white striped shirt that day, when he obvioiusy was not. (The best I have been able to come up with is that he really wanted to distance himself from Oswald, and so did not tell the truth about the clothing he was actually wearing). DSL

One other thing: I have believed--for decades--that LHO was "gaslighting" Marina, on a number of issues, most notably Walker. This is a term from my parents generation (and comes from a famous film starring Ingrid Bergman). No time to really write at length. I strongly recommend that you Google the term "gaslighting". Read Wikipedia, plus the other major entries. From Wikipedia: "Gaslighting is a term, often used by mental health professionals (I am not one), to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they’re crazy. The term comes from the 1944 MGM film, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. etc." If Walker was a staged event, as some think (and I know the local FBI thought so), then this terminology is important to understand. Personally, I also believe its important to understand what has been called the "Richard Nixon incident" which is still another example of this kind of mental abuse. (Or the nonsense when LHO told Marina he wanted to hijack an airplane). Again let me repeat what I told Myra, based on the 14 years during which I knew Marina (I first met her in Jan 1981, when B.E. was published) and spoke to her often: you can ignore/discount those who subscribe to the false notion that "Marina is lying" or that "Marina made it up." She did neither. This was the reality, as presented to her by Lee--and with which she had to deal. She also poured her heart out to Priscilla McMillan, and that's why these same things appear in that book. (It was not McMillan's fault--is what I am saying). I did a major amount of "listening and explaining" to Marina (over a period of many years) which was similar to "de-programming" someone who had been brought into a cult. That is why, when she sold the rights to her story to Wolper (around 1991 or so), she explained to the producers how important her our many conversations had been (and so they told me they wanted to make me a character in that movie!) Of course, the very brief conversations shown in the movie (which is the way screenwriters "condense" things) can not possibly capture the extent of the many conversations we had. One side note: The original philosophy of the program was that Marina had married a nut; but, with my encouragement (and Marina's obstinence) the project underwent a serious (and wonderful) reversal. As I recall, Marina stood her ground, drove Wolper senior (the original David L Wolper) nuts, and the result was neat. I consulted with Steve Bello quite a bit, and gave him valuable background information. Consequently, Fatal Deception is, I believe, probably the first nationally broadcast program with a sympathetic portrait of Oswald. That was thanks to the excellent screenwriting of Steve Bello, the sanction of producer Bernard Safronski, and the fine work of director Robert Dornheim. As you may know (or perhaps you don't), Marina "went public" with her completely revised view of the Kennedy assassination, and the fact that she had changed her mind about Oswald's culpability, in 1988. At that time she was interviewed by Myrna Blythe, editor of the Ladies Home Journal, and the article marking Marina's "coming out" on the issue of LHO's innocence, can be found in the Nov 1988 issue of that magazine. But. . back to the term "gaslighting". Look it up. Read all about it. Happy reading. DSL

ALF, I have no idea. All I know is what she said--which was that she was "saving it" to use if he ever did anything like that again. In other words, she was not his "enabler" at all. . to the contrary, she wanted him to cut out all this behavior, which she called his "spy games." DSL

Joe, On the matter of whether it could possibly be Oswald in the doorway. . . : First I want to thank you for putting together that list of references to the Warren Commission Exhibits for the statements of Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley. I also want to thank Pat Speer for the reference that he provided, and also Gary Mack, for his informative email. This morning, I have re-read and perused all of it--in other words, I have revisited that "rabbit hole." This is material I used to know like theb ack of my hand, but had really not examined in years, and it is all very important, because it is all "first day evidence." My conclusions: (1) I was wrong in positing the hypothesis that Billy Lovelady's presence at the Dallas Police Department is in any way suspicious. It now seems clear that a number of TSBD employees were brought to the police department simply because (a) the were Oswald's co-workers; (b ) one or more of them working on the 6th floor; and (c, in the case of Frazier), he had actually driven Oswald to work. So there was nothing strange at all about Lovelady being brought there. (2) There was nothing strange at all as to where Lovelady was sitting. As Gary pointed out to me in an email, on a chart of the building, it is referred to as an "interrogation room". (3) Therefore (and in the spirit of "finally"): Lovelady was not the only one brought to the DPD. As I noted above, several people were brought there, because---as in "DUH"---the Dallas Police Department were the "first responders" and (again, "DUH") they were investigating the crime. Hence, the notion that it is somehow "suspicious" that Lovelady was at the DPD is just plain wrong. As you (Joe) pointed out, Lovelady's own statement to the FBI says that he and others were brought to the DPD. Because I was wrong, I am going to search out my oriignal post on this matter, and post a notice that I was wrong. (Because of Cinque's posts, which I will be much more skeptical about in the future, I falsely inferred that Lovelady was the "only" one brought to the DPD and secondly, that there was soomething truly suspicious about where Lovelady was seated (all of Cinque's "bowels" of the Police Department statements). Other things I am reminded of: always (ALWAYS) go back to "first day evidence" to get a clear picture of the starting point in any issue. And take the time to examine the "first day evidence" yourself. Don't rely on what anyone else says about it. Read it yourself. In this case, the "first day evidence"--that is, the original statements of Shelley, Lovelady himself, and Oswald-- makes very clear that there is no reason to believe that Oswald was on the front steps of the TSBD; and certainly no reason to subscribe to the proposition that Oswald was "with Shelley." That's just plain ludicrous. Here's what Lovelady says, in his 11/22/63 statement at the DPD: “When the President came by Bill Shelley and I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work.” “After he had passed and was about 50 yards past us I heard three shots.There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together. “ I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were across the street from us. However, that could have been caused by the echo.” “After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building. I did not see anyone around the building that was not supposed to be there. DPD affidavit (11/22); (CE 2003,p.59, or 24 WCH 226) Here's what Shelley says: "I saw him periodically all morning with the exception of when we were on the sixth floor. At noon I started eating my lunch in my office and I went outside to see the President. After the Presidents accident (!!), I started checking around and I missed Lee. I asked Mr. Truly about him and He told me he had not seen him. I didn’t see Lee until the Police brought him into the Dallas Homicide Bureau. (24 WCH 226; p. CE 2003, p60) I re-checked the FBI interrogation reports of Oswald. At no point does Oswald ever say or even imply that he was standing out front watching the parade (or that he was with Shelley at the time the parade passed by). That all comes from Jim Fetzer's excited and highly inaccurate reading of Fritz' handwritten notes. Oswald says he was eating lunch (which I don't necessarily believe) and then he went to the coke machine, where the encounter with Baker occurred. As far as I'm concerned, the hypothesis that Oswald was outside with Shelley is completely unwarranted and absurd. Its the result of Jim Fetzer having misread some lines of notes made by Captain Fritz (which I posted about yesterday), when he interrogated Oswald, and Oswald mentioned Shelley. Another point: If Oswald had said any such thing when interrogated by Fritz, it would have been in the FBI reports, because they were right there when Fritz interviewed Oswald. This whole controversy is completely artificial, and results from Fetzer and Cinque's subjective interpretation of imagery that they claim to "see" in the Altgens photograph, but is not --in any way--supported by the record of the statements of people who were actually out front and watching the parade. Not by Shelley; not by Lovelady; not by anyone. It is all subjective interpretation of photographs, coupled with the bizarre idea that, through photographica alteration, one person person has been made to appear in another person's clothing, etc etc. The result is an epistemological nightmare and, imho, just a silly circus of subjective interpretation. Moreover, when shown the photograph(s) of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, Ralph Cinque then posited--falsely, in my opinion--that the photographic evidence was falsified,and that Lovelady had been "embedded" into those film frames. Absurd. There is no real evidence for any of that (either). Further, and indicative of the rather inaccurate and excited way he went about the pursuit of this line of investigation, Ralph Cinque said that Lovelady was in the "bowels" of the DPD. ( More nonsense) and "what was he doing there? How did he get there?" he asked. I'm sorry to say that, by not fully checking the record, I got drawn into this nonsense. Lovelady was in an area clearly marked as an interrogation room and he was there because the DPD had brought in some of the fellow employees for interrogation--in Lovelady's case, he had actually been up on the sixth floor. l cannot resist pointing, in connection with this absurd hypothesis, some of Fetzer's other beliefs", because they all go to the credibilty that should be accorded (or not accorded) to the various arcane and improbable hypotheses which he posits, and to which he dearly subscribes: (a) That we didn't go to the moon --that all of that has been faked. (b ) THat no planes hit the World Trade Center (it is all video fakery) (c )That the buildings were all brought down by "controlled demolition" (d) That a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon ; and later, that it was not a passenger jjet, but some other military aircraft (e) That the debris outside the Pentagon was not from the aircraft that hit, but was rather "planted" there aftewards (a la bullet 399, only somehow deposited by a low flying aircraft. Sorry if I dont have all the details correct. I have trouble keeping track of all this nonsense). (f) That the hijackers are still alive. (g) That Isreal and its backers were really behind the 9/11 attacks (h ) That Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in 2001, and the recent killing of Bin Laden was all a fake etc etc etc and yadadada. . . From recent postings, it is clear that Ralph Cinque is also a 9/11 truther, and a subscriber to one or more of these theses. Anyway, Joe. . back to you and to reality. I look forward to the piece you said you were working on. One other point--a small one, but important: You asserted that Lovelady told reporter Dom Bonafede that he was visited by the FBI on Saturday night, and interviewed about his image in the Altgens photograph. Please note: there are NO FBI reports of any such interview. I'm not saying it didn't occur, but either (a ) the FBI deliberately omitted these "early Lovelady" interviws or (b ) it wasn't the FBI who interviewed him at that time or (c ) Lovelady is just plain mistaken. I don't know which of the three it was. But in following your lead, I looked up CE 1403, and expected to find an FBI interview, and instead realized it was simply a Lovelady statement inside the Dom Bonafede 5/64 NY Herald Tribune article. Well, as Winston Churchill used to say. . ."KBO". . . This whole "Oswald was there . . . after all" business, imho, is a total side issue and has been an almost complete waste of time. DSL PS In answer to your question: the Sheriff's office is where "witnesses" were brought; the DPD (Harwood and Main) was the heaquarters for "the investigation". That's all I meant to imply. And again, many thanks for looking up all those citations. I know that took time to assemble.

Joe, As I recall, CE 1381 was an FBI report that resulted from a formal Warren Commission request--to the FBI--to please go out and assemble a document of every single person who was employed at the TSBD, in which certain specific questions were to be addressed. One of them (as I recall) was " Where were you at the time of the shooting." What I think is interesting (and possibly useful) is to assemble a list of all those (who were employed at the TSBD) who were actually brought to the Dallas Police Department, rather than simply being treated as "witnesses" and brought to the Sheriff's Office (at the SE corner of Main and Houston, at Dealey Plaza). Some of the posts on this thread are useful, in assembling such a list. So thanks for that. DSL

Ok, so I'm trying to understand the Walker episode. It's almost up there with the Tippit mystery. I'm leaning towards believing, along with Shanet, that it was part of the setup to make the patsy look like a hard core left wing gun-totin' wacko. But... if that's the case then why wasn't the Walker episode publicized more after Oswald's death to reinforce the image they were manufacturing of him? Was it publicized a lot to help incriminate the patsy but I'm not aware of it? Seems like the propagandists would want maximum mileage out of the incident; why bother to set it up otherwise? Hi Myra, The Walker episode was in fact given lots of publicity--and the "start date" for the print media was Saturday, December 7, 1963. Here's the basic chronology: 4/10/63: Oswald left Marina a note, which provided instructions as to what to do if he was arrested or "taken alive". Someting like that. Marina, of course, was frightened. What the heck was going on, she wondered. Then, later that night, Oswald came rushing in, and lay down on the bed, shaking and palefaced, and told her he had shot Walker. He turned on the radio, flipping from station to staion, and listened to news reports, translating for Marina. (This is what she said. The Lord only knows if Oswald actually was faithfully translating). The next morning, he bought a newspaper home, and told Marina that Walker had escaped death, but it was by sheer accident; that he (Lee) had really tried to kill him, but Walker had moved his head at the last minute. Lee told her, according to Marina, that he was sorry that he had missed. Marina was angry, and scared. She was a child of Stalinist Russia,and here was her husband telling her that he had tried ot murder a U.S. army general. She saved the note and told Oswald she would go to the police, if he ever did anthing like that again. This is critical, because the note functioned as "the trigger." MARINA AND THE HIDDEN NOTE Marina had hidden it, and on November 22, when she heard (from Ruth Paine) that JFK was shot rom the building where Lee worked, she ran to the garage to see if the rifle was still in the blanket. She saw the blanket, and mistakenly concluded it contained the rifle. When the police arrived later, and asked point blank if her husband owned a rile, she pointed to the blanket (which she thought contained the rifle). When they raised it, and it was empty, her heart sank. She was scared, and fightened. She couldn't understand why Lee, who loved Kennedy, was shoot him. En route to the poiice station, seated next to Ruth Paine, she asked Paine (in a low voice, and in Russian): "Was Walker in the car with him?" (This is in Paine's sworn testimony). Marina kept the Walker affair totally secret until Tuesday, December 2, 1963. That's when the Secret Service--screening Marina's incoming mail and packages--opened a book that had been dropped of at the Irving Poice department, by Ruth Paine, on Saturday, November 30. The book contained the note. THE NOTE AS "THE TRIGGER" Please note: the note functioned as "the trigger". Without the note, those involved in this farce couldn't surface the Walker affair without revealing their own foreknowledge of the supposed "link" between the two events. IMHO: The note was "supposed to be found" on Friday afternoon, 11/22--but Marina (who is really quite clever, and was very protective of Lee) had hidden the note in a book. When certain police officers were searching the Paine home on Saturday, 11/23, Ruth Paine reports that they were flipping through various books, as if "looking for something"--and I'll bet they were! But, they couldn't find it. (Hurray for Marina!) However, . . that changed on Monday, December 2. SS agent Gopadze, who fount the note, called Marina on the telephone. She denied all knowledge. Then he confronted Ruth Paine with the note: she said she knew nothing about it (and she didn't). Then, on Tuesday, December 3, he personaly went to where Marina was staying, and showed her the note. Confronted with the note, her defenses collapsed, and Marina then told the whole story. The FBI interviewed her hours later that same day (December 3, Agents Boguslav and Heitman) and so now it was officially a matter of record: Marina had now confessed to what the note was all about--that her husband Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker the previous April, and indeed, that he told her that he had tried to kill him. THE WALKER BULLET Of course, there's a whole ancillary story about the bullet that was recovered from Walker's house. And by the way--it was not found inside a wall, or anything like that. It had (supposedly) gone through a wall, and was found lying atop some papers in another room (shades of 399!. . only this one was really battered and scrunched up). Also, there's the question of whether Walker --somehow--"knew" his supposed sniper was Oswald, and told that right wing German newspaper exactliy that in a translatlantic phone call on 11/23/63. He also behaved that same way with another journalist on Saturday, November 30, implying that his sniper had been Oswald, three days before Marina admitted that to the FBI. A KEY DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1963 The fact that Marina had told the FBI that her husband had shot at Walker was released to the press on Friday, December 6 (via the Dallas Police Department)--along with reports that Walker's name and phone number was in Oswald's address book--and all of that was headline news in the nations media on Saturday, December 7. The New York Times (for example) ran it as their lead story that Saturday--it was page 1, column 8. The headline: "Oswald linked to a shot fired at General Walker." The sub-heads read: "Said to Have Told Someone, Thought to be His Wife, of Dallas Attack in April. And: "BULLET PIECES STUDIED" "But Fragments Cannot Be Conclusively Connected to Kennery Murder Gun" Here's the lead: Dallas, Dec. 6 - A rifle shot that narrowly missed former Maj. Gen. Edwin A Walker in his dallas home last April 10 was ired by Lee H. Oswald, police sources said today. Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy, told at least one person that he fired the shot at Mr. Walker, it was learned. That peson was believed to have been Oswald's Russian-born wife, Marina." etc etc. Myra, you can ignore those who propound the notion that Marina "made it up." I knew Marina well for about 14 years. Let me assure you: She did not "make it up." (That's the kind of line thats proposed by those who have a tendency, in this case, to "shoot the messenger" instead of reading the message.) Walker was Marina's personal nightmare, and she spent years coming to terms with it. In fact, the Walker affair was a major factor in causing Marina's "defenses" to collapse--circa Dec 3, 1963--and for her to move to the position that her husband had (apparently) shot Kennedy. That's what she really believed, for a while--indeed, for a long while. She held that position from December, 1963, all the way through 1981. MY OWN CONTACTS WITh MARINA - - starting in January, 1981 BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981, and it was that month that I met Marina for the first time. Between Jan 1981, and 1988, I spoke with Marina dozens and dozens of times. There's no question but that I was instrumental in leading her away from that position, and providing alternate explanatons for the strange behavior of her husband. Subsequently, Marina reversed her position, and said so in a series of interviews with Myrna Blyth, the editor of the Ladies Home Journal, which were published in November, 1988. At that time, Marina "came out" and said that she no longer believed the official version. I worked closely with the produers and screen writer of the Marina Oswald story, aired in 1993. That was the first time the Walker affair was portrayed (albeit briefly) as a setup. Marina no longer believes her husband assassianted President Kennedy, but (I don't think) she was ever able to get around the fact that Lee Oswald came running in that night, and said he had in fact shot at Walker. In short, she was the victim of a manipulation. Of course, Lee did not intend to die that weekend, and not be around "to explain." As I learned from many conversations, Marina was something of a poet. In our 1990 filmed interview, she talked about her mixed feelings towards Lee and said "He left me to swim in this dirty water." Hope this helps. To be continued. . . DSL

Thank you, Joe. And here's information I received from Gary Mack, via email. He informs me that the photographer was Charles Buck of WFAA, and that the location was "the Dallas Police interrogation room." Further, that the DPD floor chart refers to it as the "interview room." He also states that clearer copies of the Buck film show the clock as "2:02". Gary says that Buck was present with two other photographers, bt he didn't know their names or who they worked for. Moreover, that his film appeared unedited on WFAA that first day, since it was the only one they had of Oswald, when he was taken in for the first time. If so--if the film was broadcast that day--then that would negate any hypothesis that Lovelady was "embedded" or added on later. Its now clear, from the report that Joe Backes found, that Lovelady and some others were in fact brought to the Dallas Police Department. I'd still like to know who interrogated them, what they were asked, and where are those reports. One other thing: Gary points out what I think has been noted (probably by him) on other threads, and weeks (or even months ago): that WFAA station manger Mike Shapiro alerted the FBI to the "doorway man" and invited investigators to study the photo at the TV station. He says that there are films and video tapes of them doing just that--and they still exist. I do believe all of this has been discussed before--and there are FBI reports dated 11/25/63, when this whole matter was addressed. So that's why those of us who are "old-timers" find it difficult (if not impossble) to now accept the notion that it was Oswald "after all." It was not Oswald "after all," and never was Oswald. Moreover, this entire issue was settled decades ago. So its not just a matter of "old wine in new bottles"; its a matter of attempting to recycle an issue which was long ago resolved, and which has no valid reason for being revived today. Anyway, my primary purpose in beginning this thread was to address the question: why was Lovelady at the DPD, prior to the arrival of Oswald? It now appears that he was brought there with "others" and I'd like to know by whom, and who conducted the interrogation. The hypothesis I posited is that the same "resemblance" which has caused so much trouble (vis a vis the issue of whether he was "the man in the doorway") may have caused him to be picked up early and brought in for interrogation, based on an incomplete and faulty profile of the pre-selected patsy. If Lovelady was brought in for an innocent reason, then that conjecture would be wrong. But its still not clear to me why Lovelady was in the Dallas Police "interrogation room" at that early hour. Perhaps its innocent, but I'd still like to see more information before the issue is entirely resolved in my own mind. DSL

Thanks, Joe. I would like to know who the "several other employees" were, who the police officer was, and why they were brought to the Dallas Police Department "for questioning." If you come upon such information in any document, please do post it. DSL

Am I not correct, Bernice, that these witnesses were over at the Sheriff's office, as I indicated in my post? Please clarify, if you know. Thank you. DSL

UPDATE - - 5/21/12 - - PLEASE NOTE: the thesis advanced in this post is incorrect. Please see my detailed post on the thread started by Backes about the source of the film showing Oswald being marched by Lovelady. In a nutshell: Lovelady was one of several TSBD employees brought to the DPD on 11/22, and the reason is simple: The DPD were the "first responders" and were conducting the investigation. * * * Most students of the Kennedy assassination know that Billy Lovelady (as seen in the Altgens photograph) bears a striking similarity to Lee Oswald. On November 22, 1963, and in the days and weeks following the assassination, there was a serious issue as to whether the image in the doorway was possibly Oswald. The stakes were high. If the image in the doorway was Oswald, then obviously Oswald was not President Kennedy’s assassin, because the Altgens photograph would then have been proof that Oswald was downstairs watching the parade, and not upstairs firing a rifle at Kennedy. Within a day, the FBI was poring over the photograph. They immediately interviewed Lovelady, and he identified himself as the man in the doorway. Other employees also said that Lovelady was downstairs, on the steps. No one said that Oswald was on the steps. Not a single person. On 12/2/63, the Associated Press circulated the picture, with a circle around the image of the “man in the doorway,” and asking the obvious question: who was it? According to newspaper reporter Dom Bonafede, who wrote the first major story about the Altgens photograph (5/24/64, in the New York Herald Tribune) and the striking similarity between the two images, the FBI agents were visibly relieved when Lovelady identified himself, and, in effect, said, “Yeah, that’s me.” I don’t think anyone who has studied the assassination carefully, hasn’t gone through a period where he or she didn’t pay close attention to the issue. I remember ordering very high quality photographs of the Altgens picture, and spending a lot of time poring over it with a magnifying glass. The FBI concluded it was Lovelady, based on their interviews of Lovelady, and co-workers who were on the steps of the TSBD. And the Warren Commission arrived at the same conclusion. One small (and unresolved) issue was that Lovelady maintained that he was wearing a red and white striped shirt that day—and actually showed up in such a shirt when the FBI asked him to appear in February, 1964, and took pictures of him in that shirt. No one in the doorway is wearing any such shirt. MY SMALL ROLE IN THE CONTROVERSY In 1972/73, I played a small role in the controversy. I held the position of “researcher” on the film Executive Action. The producer was Ed Lewis, the film editor was Ivan Dryer, and we ordered all available film footage of the Kennedy assassination from New York film libraries. We needed all the footage because, in the movie, JFK “played himself,” via extensive use of newsreel footage, so we had to know what was “out there.” I personally reviewed most of the footage on a 16 mm movieola. One such film strip showed Oswald, after his arrest, being marched off the elevator on the third floor of the Dallas Police Department building, and towards Fritz’ office. As a cameraman followed this small procession, who should be seated there, with the clock showing about “2:03” pm, but Billy Lovelady! Seeing both of them in the same film frame settled it for me: obviously, they were similar, but they were in fact wearing different shirts. Suddenly, the mystery of the Altgens photograph evaporated. I made slides of individual frames of the movie, and showed them to Robert Groden; and subsequently, he studied the whole matter closely, interviewed Lovelady, photographed him, and concluded that the man in the doorway was Lovelady. Around January, 1977, I showed the same slides to HSCA attorneys, when I met with them. Ultimately, they too concluded the man in the doorway was Lovelady. THE FETZER-CINQUE HYPOTHESIS—REVISITED Recently, Jim Fetzer—and his associate Ralph Cinque—have raised the issue again. They argue that Oswlad was in the doorway “after all,” and have argued that through some complex photographic manipulation, that has been concealed. It is really Oswald in the doorway, they maintain, but he is wearing Lovelady’s clothing, or some variant of this. FWIW: I don’t buy their argument at all. But --and this is very important--I am not writing this thread to re-argue any of that. I strongly disagree with their view; but its their right to believe it. So then: why am I writing this thread? Here’s why: I am writing this thread to address the problem differently: not “who was in the doorway,” but rather: “Why was Billy Lovelady sitting outside of Fritz’ office, when Oswald was brought in?” That’s my question—or rather, that’s the question I am asking, and will attempt to address, in this post. Fetzer and Cinque apparently believe that Lovelady is really not sitting there, on the third floor of the Dallas Police Department, and near Fritz’ office (“in the bowels” of the building, as Ralph Cinque often says, in his posts). Rather, he (and Fetzer) subscribe to the proposition that motion picture footage showing Lovelady sitting there, as Oswald is marched by, has been altered, and that Lovelady has been “embedded” in that footage. THE “Lovelady has been emb edded” hypothesis Again, I disagree. That’s Lovelady, all right—and I’m not proposing to debate that point. However, I am proposing to discus a closely related question: what’s he doing there? Why is he there? That’s a fair question, and is one I propose to address. THE “RULES OF THE GAME” (that I am proposing, re this post) If you wish to pursue the matter of “photo alteration”—either in the case of the Altgens photograph, or in the matter of the film footage showing Lovelady seated on the third floor of the DPD, then please continue that debate on the other thread, which was started by Prof. Jim Fetzer. On the other hand, f you believe (as I do) that its Lovelady, and if you believe (as I do) that Lovelady was seated outside Fritz’ office when Oswald was brought in (as I do) , and if you have wondered about this remarkable resemblance, and have questions about it, then I invite you to read this thread, and I welcome your comments. To repeat: this is a thread that will primarily address the question of “why” Lovelady is seated somewhere outside of Fritz’ office, at around 2:03 PM (according to the clock that is in the picture)—and NOT whether the film footage has been altered to make it appear that he is there. To repeat: I don’t believe any of that film footage was altered, and having stated my belief, let me now proceed. THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED Here are questions that have been asked—one by Don Jeffries, a moderator, and another by Cinque and Fetzer. Let me state the question(s): (1) Isn’t it odd that, at the Texas School Book Depository, a man was employed who looked so similar to Oswald? Is that really a coincidence? If not, what other explanation might there be? (2) If something fishy isn’t going on, then why was Lovelady outside of Fritz’s office, when Oswald was brought in at 2:03 PM?? What was he doing there? (This question has been asked repeatedly by Ralph Cinque, who uses it as part of his argument that (a) Lovelady really was not there and (b ) therefore, the motion picture footage showing him there is a fabrication. I disagree. Lovelady is there all right—and, as mentioned above—I’m not writing this post to engage I a debate as to whether the photographs have been altered. Rather, I’m addressing the question from the standpoint that the photographs have not been altered—and that its really Lovelady who is seated there. MY RECENT EXPERIENCE CONSIDERING THESE QUESTIONS Yesterday, prompted by these questions, I was taking another look at this situation, and discussing it at length with another JFK researcher who has have 25 years or more experience. And it was during that discussion that I came up with what I believe to be a possibl answer—or at least a hypothesis worth considering. It will not answer all the questions, but it goes a long way towards de-mystifying what is going on here (or, more exactly) what went on back in November, 1963. FIRST QUESTION: Was it a coincidence that Lovelady was employed at the TSBD? This question was raised (more or less) by moderator Don Thomas. He asked if it could really be a coincidence that, at the location where Oswald was employed, another person could be employed, who bore such a striking resemblance to Oswald. My answer (and this is just my opinion) is “Yes.” : Yes, I think it is pure coincidence that, at the scene of the crime, and at the building where the alleged assassin—in my opinion, the pre-selected patsy in the Kennedy assassination was employed, there was another man who looked sufficiently like him to cause the confusion that (and the controversy) that has arisen surrounding the Altgens photograph. Personally, I do not think there’s anything sinister about Lovelady; and I don’t believe that this similarity in looks is indicative of anything. In short, I don’t believe that Billy Nolan Lovelady had anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy. Now that’s just my personal opinion, but then, that leads to the second (and to me, the far more important) question: What was Lovelady doing on the third floor of the Dallas Police Department, and somewhere outside Fritz office? This is where the discussion gets rather interesting—albeit a bit conjectural—and here is the crux of my thinking, and why I decided to write this post. So now, let’s proceed. DPD FOREKNOWLEDGE OF OSWALD I have always believed that there was, to some extent, a certain amount of DPD “foreknowledge” of Oswald. A most striking instance of this—and the first time I had this sense—was when I carefully examined the DPD tapes of the radio transmissions. When Inspector Sawyer first transmitted the “description” of the suspect to the Police Dispatcher, he said he was 5 ft 10 and 165 pounds. Here is the exact quote: “The type of weapon looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester.” Then came this exchange: DISPASTCHER: It was a rifle? SAWYER: A rifle, yes. DISPATCHER: . . . any clothing desription? SAWYER: . . About 30, 5’10”, 165 pounds. The dispatcher then repeated the transmission, in the fashion of “calling all cars!”. Here’s what he said: QUOTE: “Attention all squads; the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-3 rifle. Repeat. . . “ (WCE 1974, p. 170) In BEST EVIDENCE, I then pointed out the problem. QUOTE: “Oswald was definitely of “slender build.” But the information transmitted from Inspector Sawyer to the dispatcher did not include that. All men who are 5’ 10” and 165 pounds are not necessarily of of “slender build,” and if the dispatcher, in the few seconds between the time he received the information from Sawyer and when he broadcast it, himself drew that inference, that might be a sign of good police work. But the addition of those two words could be a sign that, like thw witness who provided information to the police in Dealey Plaz, someone had provided the fact, “slender build,” to the dispatcher of the Dallas Police Department.” (pp 368-369 of B.E.; which is about ¾ of the way through Chapter 14). I then dropped a footnote, and, besides crediting a good friend (Steven Bailey) with having made that discovery, I wrote: “The addition “slender build” actually appears in the FBI transcript of the Channel 1 and Channel 2 transmissions, but it is more striking when actually heard on the tape. All very well. . .and my point is obvious: did the DPD have a certain amount of “advance information” about Oswald. . . not (necessarily) a whole lot, but some. Now. . let us return to the question I have asked. RE-VISITING THE QUESTION What was Lovelady doing on the third floor of the DPD, at about 2:03 PM, when Oswald, who was arrested at the Texas Theater, was brought in? I happen to agree with Oswald’s mother—who has said publicly (in the spring of 1964, on the Phil Donahue radio show)—that she believed her son was supposed to be shot dead in the TSBD. If so, then Oswald getting out of the building, alive, posed a serious problem for the plotters. And the question would have been: “where the heck is he?” Of course, by about 1:18 PM, that question began to be resolved. Officer Tippet was shot, a pursuit ensued, and Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater, and brought in to the DPD. However, prior to that time, and when only fragmentary information was available, matters were ripe for confusion. If all the DPD had was some sort of imperfect profile of Oswald, it seems to me that is not unreasonable that someone—some person who only had an imperfect description, but not a name—might have focused on Lovelady. As a consequence of that mis-identification, Lovelady was “brought in”. As soon as he arrived at the DPD, one or more of the higher-ups—i.e., someone “in the know”—basically said “No, that’s not him” and then, having a bit of a hot potato on their hands, someone said, “hey you, sit here.” And so Lovelady was told to sit down and wait—in the manner of an unnecessary call being “placed on hold”. . .and so there he was, sitting on the third floor of the DPD, at 2:03 PM, when the true pre-selected patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, was picked up at the Texas Theater, and marched right by Lovelady, on the way to Fritz’ office. AN IMPORTANT POINT TO UNDERSTAND Many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses to the assassination were brought to the Sheriff’s Office, just off Dealey Plaza, and that’s where their statements were taken: e.g., Jean Hill, Mary Moormn, Charles, Brehm, Betzer, etc. You can see them all laid out in the Sheriff’s file. And there is a striking photograph of a room-ful of these witnesses in Sheriff Decker’s office. But Lovelady was not brought to that location, and this is important, indeed, it is very important. Lovelady was brought to the Dallas Police Department, at Harwood and Main. Let me spell this out: witnesses were brought to the Sheriff’s department. The suspect Oswald was brought to the Dallas Police Department. And that’s where Lovelady was brought—prior to the arrest of Oswald. Somehow, and for some reason, Lovelady was brought to the vicinity of the Dallas Police Department. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING I am suggesting that sometime between about 12:40 PM and 2 pm, Lovelady was incorrectly “fingered” –by someone, somehow, and based on the similarity of looks to Oswald—and was brought to the place where “the suspect” would later be brought. And that is why he was seated there, somewhere near Fritz’s office, when Oswald, the pre-selected patsy, was brought into the Dallas Police Department. That moment is captured on camera—not because Lovelady was “embedded” in the film, at some later time. The moment is captured on camera because Lovelady was really there. THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED: Lovelady passed away many years ago, but if he was alive, the question that we would want to ask him is: who brought you to the DPD? And what were you told at the time? And it breaks down into roughly two parts: (a) Who initially told you that they wanted to “take you in” and what reason was given—both at the tiem, and en route to the Dallas Police Department? (b ) When you arrived at the Dallas Police Department, and specifically, on the third floor, when did it become apparent that you were “brought in” by mistake? What conversations did you hear—or hear about—from anyone? These questions were never asked (I think) because the film footage that I discovered around 1972/73, when working for the producers of Executive Action, was never examined, and so the possible implications of Lovelady being at the DPD, prior to the time that Oswald arrived there (about 2:03 PM, per the clock that is in the picture) was not even known. Personally: I know of no FBI report that talks about that footage, or of Lovelady seated there, or raises any such question—and certainly, Lovelady wasn’t volunteering information about that subject, either in any of his FBI interviews, or when questioned by the Warren Commission. IN A NUTSHELL: I believe that Lovelady’s presence at the DPD, and on the third floor of the DPD, is a conscience of the similarity of appearance of Oswald and Lovelady, and constitutes circumstantial evidence of early (and decidedly premature) “profiling” of the patsy, prior to the time of his actual arrest. RE-VISITING THE STRIPED SHIRT It is clear from the Dom Bonafede article, in the New York Herald Tribune, that Lovelady was thoroughly spooked by the similarity between himself and Oswald. He did not want to be photographed—at all—and when JFK researcher Jones Harris hired a photographer to photograph Lovelady (this is around April, 1964), they got in a fight. They were brought to the police station, and the photographer was told to leave Dallas. As in “immediately”. I now believe that a reasonable answer to why Lovelady told people he was wearing a red and white striped shirt—rather than the plaid shirt he was obviously wearing that day—is that (a) he was spooked by this experience and (b ) wanted to create distance between himself and Oswald. He had a taste of what it was like—even for a brief moment—to be a “suspect” in this case; and to be on the hot seat; and he didn’t want to ever get near that again. And so he said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and actually appeared in such a shirt, when he was asked to appear at the FBI office and be photographed in February, 1964. AN IMPORTANT POINT TO BE EMPHASIZED Witnesses were brought to the Sheriff’s office. Suspects were brought to Captain Fritz’ office. The Sheriff’s office was at Dealey Plaza, at the southeast corner of Main and Houston. The Dallas Police Department was at Harwood and Main, well over a mile away. The fact that Lovelady was at the DPD, by 2:03 PM, is (to me, anyway) circumstantial evidence that –at that early hour—he was briefly treated as a suspect (and certainly not as a “witness”. The question is “why”. And the answer I am proposing: “Because he ‘looked like’ Oswald, that’s why.” As I said at the outset of this post, this discussion addresses the matter of the Lovelady/Oswald similarity from the standpoint that neither the Altgens photograph has been altered, nor has the film footage showing Oswald being marched by Lovelady. I believe the answer I am proposing makes more sense than the complex hypotheses –involving all kinds of implausible photo alteration--offered by Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque. Not only does it explain why Lovelady was seated on the third floor of the Dallas Police Department prior to the arrival of Oswald; it also explains why Lovelady lied about the shirt he was wearing—something which has always bothered me, and which I noted in previous posts on the London Forum. THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION It is possible that confided to members of his family precisely what happened to him that afternoon, and why he was brought in to the DPD, at such an early hour. If so, I would hope that, with the passage of time, such information might be available, and if anyone has such information, I hope they will post it on this forum. DSL 5/20/12; 9:30 AM Los Angteles, California

A few months ago, a friend of mine went to a Chris Mathews book signing at a midwest city. As he stood in line, waiting his turn, he heard Mathews say to another patron, whose book he was signing: "I have the greatest job in the world. And I'm not going to do anything to screw it up!" My friend waited patiently, and when it came his turn, he asked him the first of two questions. "If Kennedy was killed by a plot, does that change his legacy?" Here, verbatim, is what happened next: Mathews raised his voice and responded,in a sneering fashion: "Oh. . no! I see where you're coming from. "You're obsessed with this case! "He [President Kennedy] was killed by a Communist! "If someone doesn't realize he was killed by a communist, they ought to have their head examined!" My friend kept a poker face, and got to his second question--recounting what Tip O'Neill said in his memoir; about what he was told by Ken O'Donnell-that, as Doug Horne relates, he lied (not saying anything about shots from the front) at the request of the FBI. Mathews reacted, in that same sneering, "I know it better than you" fashion: "That's just a story!" "He didn't say that! That's just some story." As Mathews left the book signing table, he looked back at my friend, and said: "Send me your best theories! "Send it to MS-NBC!". . . as if he was some kind of media version of Dirty Harry. So that's what we've got, in the way of critical thinking, coming from Chris Mathews. FWIW: I can no longer watch Chris Mathews spouting off on any subject without thinking of his wise-ass, ignorant, commentary on the JFK case. Can Mathews really be that stupid, and uninformed? Or is he just plain arrogant? And in what other areas does his loud-mouthed style of commentary hide an abysmal lack of information? On April 3, 1993, in Chicago, I was on a radio program in which reporter Steve Dahl played a wonderful (and detailed) telephone interview with Tip O'Neill. For a good five minutes, O'Neill went through the entire account, as told him by Ken O'Donnell. It was clear he was dead serious, and it was not just some "story." Its absurd to believe that Chris Mathews is unaware of what his former boss had to say on this subject. I know its just a fantasy, but I wish I were the head of his network and could turn to Mathews and say, "Chris, you're fired!" Because that's what ought to happen to someone who is so totally irresponsible when it comes to such a serious issue. DSL

Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck. Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you. "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this: "Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised. What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked. Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. " Thanks for proving me correct...again. So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them.... Yep, and he had a number of 414 cameras that did NOT do it at all... You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure.... Be happy to do just that, just supply the frames that have not had any levels or curve adjustments that to normalize the exposure frame to frame. You can't show me web images where we can be assured this has not happened. Of course if you had the relevant experience, you would konw that. All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...? Does he ever explain he DID NOT do that? Of course not. Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation. His testimony says nothing of the sort, you need to learn to read. And of course the Z film is perfectly consistant with a stop/start. He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001, you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming, Again he said NO SUCH THING. Lets review and see you just make it up from thin air... "That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street" He does not say he filmed the entire time, he can't really remember..."I BELIEVE"... AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no? And it looks just like a stop and start. The problem for your "copy" sillyness is the fact that two experts, Zavada and Ryan looked at the original microscopically and declared it camera original film. A "copy" looks different that camera originals... and Kodachrome camera stock makes really poor copy stock. Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent. Of course we have evidence, the Z film. It looks exactly as it should for a stop and start. And if you notice on your above quote Zapruder does not say he FILMED everything he saw, nor was he asked that question. " I saw the a..." He was asked "What did you see as you took your films". . He then responded with what he "saw" (as in, "I saw. . " ) The clear implication is that he is describing what he saw "as [he] took" the film of what he saw. That's just plain English. What kind of silly argument are you attempting to make here? Mr. Lamson. Why don't you just say that you believe the film is unaltered, and you really don't care what the contrary data is? DSL

Oswald was a few years ahead of the Hale twins in school. i doubt they took any retained notice of him if their attendance did overlap with his...... I just checked it out. Oswald attended AHHS as a sophomore from September to October 1956. The Hale brothers were 18 year-old seniors in Spring 1958. Assuming they went to AHHS--which would not come as a surprise since they lived in Ft. Worth and the school had a very good reputation back then--they would have been juniors in October 1956--which puts them one year ahead of Oswald. While the school is a large one, it is not a giant one. It has 74 classrooms, and had 1500 students in 1996, as a 4 year school. My high school, by comparison, had over 3,000 students in 1979, as a three year school. If the school was a 4 year school in 1956, as I presume, with about 1500 students, there would be about 375 students per grade. If Oswald was as outgoing abut his interest in communism and plans to join the Marines as indicated elsewhere, well, then, it seems quite possible the Hales knew all about him in 1956, and would have followed his subsequent "defection" with great interest. When one considers the Hales' strange appearance at Judy Campbell's house a few years later, one is forced to consider that they might be up to their necks in intrigues never fully explained. Did they help set up Oswald? Good question. Pat: According to the FBI investigation, Oswald entered Arlington Heights H.S. on 9/5/56, and withdrew on 9/28/56 to join the Marines. In short, he attended for three weeks and 2 days, and only in September, 1956. During that brief period, he was in the 10th grade. DSL

My experience with Timothy Leary- - Circa 1965, when he appeared as the speaker at a meeting of a group that subscribed to “General Semantics”. (For more info on that, see: http://en.wikipedia....neral_semantics) At the time, I was attending a lecture sponsored by an Ayn Rand group, and Alan Greenspan (the future Fed chairman) was appearing (via a taped lecture, as I recall). The Ayn Rand group met regularly in a room at the AIAA auditorium on Beverly Boulevard, where CBS Television City is now located. The General Semantics people (who believed that reality was rather malleable) rented a room in that building, and in fact on the same floor. After the lecture, I was in the parking lot, and who should be there but Timothy Leary, that night’s speaker. I was then about 25, believed in an objective reality, and didn’t understand how a Harvard professor could possibly subscribe to such balderdash (the "malleable reality" idea--my phrase). So we “got into it.” Really, it became a rather heated discussion. The man really did not subscribe to the notion of an objective reality, and he was adamant about it. At the time, I drove a 1961 Volkswagon, and it was parked right there, where we were talking. And I’ll never forget what he said: “If you want to believe that that Volkswagon is a volkswagon, and not possibly an elephant, that is your problem!” Really, he said that. (And he meant it! I'm not kidding.) So keep that in mind—I always do—whenever I read anything about Leary. I got in my car, and probably went up the street for a stop at Canter’s Deli. And then drove home (I was then living in West L.A.) Of course, I drove my VW everywhere. . . and had a couple of engine changes. But I never thought it was an elephant. DSL

My last conversation with James Sibert was in August, 1990. He seemed quite supportive of my work. My favorite quote, from that conversation, in which he emphasized the sheer size of the hole in JFK's head, was: " . that’s haunted me for years, this surgery of the head. This part, back on the back there. “You could look right in there. . “ In the written notes he made, and which are available on the net (in the ARRB's medical section, "MD-216"), he wrote: "Brain had been removed from head cavity." DDSL 4/20/12 1:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Where did you get the idea that Greer slowed the limo for that reason? Did Greer say anything like that in his testimony or anywhere else? Is there anything in Secret Service protocols that would require him to do such a thing? Let me be brief, because this is not a very important point, and I'm doing this from memory, but. . .: A veteran JFK researcher recently pointed out to me that in the book The Kennedy Detail, the author actually advances the view that the President's limo slowed down sharply for the following reason: that Greer, upon hearing loud noises, thought he his vehicle might have suffered a blowout. Consequently, he then tapped on the brake pedal, slowing the car down, just to test to see if the car was "stable" (i.e., to determine whether he had had a blowout); then, and only after determining there had been no blowout, he then stepped on the gas, and sped away. FWIW: I find this explanation to be absurd and ridiculous, but that's what the book says. If time permits, or if someone wants to email me the exact quotes, I'll edit this post accordingly. But I find it amazing that, so many years after the fact, anyone would have the audacity to come up with such an "explanation". DSL 4/2/12; 4:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Sorry David, but I couldn't get past this statement. I cannot see why you think Clinton's beliefs are important in any way. We already know that Clinton was a fan of JFK and that he was also a relatively intelligent person. Given this, his belief in a conspiracy is a given. However, Clinton was also an insider within the Establishment from an early age, taken under the wing of Win Rockefeller Immediately after graduation. Despite his status, Clinton was a low-level lieutenant in the Establishment, asked to do important but relatively small things like money laundering and looking the other way. Thus, he could afford to dream about things like the assassination of his idol. Nobody cared. As POTUS, however, Clinton was never going to rock the boat. I mean, Clinton must have known precisely by that time why JFK was killed and it was crystal clear that Clinton was a survivor, not a martyr. Anyone who implies that Clinton was a free-thinker or had plans to solve the case is certainly missing the big picture. I don't think Jackie had to persuade him of anything. She probably just wanted to commiserate with someone she liked and, at most, give him simple advice. Sorry, but I do not buy your rather cavalier line of reasoning. Specifically: your statement: I mean, Clinton must have known precisely by that time why JFK was killed Oh really. . "precisely". . eh? So now you're presenting us with a conspiracy theory re what Clinton "must have known." Sez who, may I ask? Just how, may I ask, do you think he came by this knowledge? After he was inaugurated, do you think he was presented with a folder to read, titled "Here is the truth about the Kennedy assassination"? With perhaps, as the late Wesley Liebeler used to say, a classification that said "Read and Eat"? How do you think he came by this knowledge, of which there is no known record inside the Government? Sorry, but I think Clinton was being honest when he said what Hubbell reports he said; and if Clinton was "talked to" at all (and I do believe he was, to explain the 180 that I'm aware of), then it was by Jacqueline Kennedy, or Edward Kennedy or someone like that. Certainly, before he was inaugurated, he very likely read some of the more important books. I know for a fact that Ronald Reagan had a slew of JFK assassination books near his bedside. I know--from personal conversation with the man--that Christopher Hitchens once had a "bookshelf" of JFK books. And I wouldn't be surprised if, as a very bright man, and an attorney, Bill Clinton did not do some serious reading. So the question he put to Web Hubbell seems entirely reasonable to me. What is unreasonable to me is the notion that "of course" he "knew" "precisely" what happened, and the rather absurd statement that as President of the United States, Clinton was a "low level lieutenant in the Establishment." This reveals a lot about your world view, but sheds little light on the reality of the events in question. DSL 4/2/12; 4:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Yes, the Krasner article -- "The Parts that were Left Out of the Kennedy Book" (May, 1967, Realist)--was a brilliant satire. I say that because, to those of us who lived through that period--everyone was waiting with baited breath for the Manchester book, and, starting around the fall of 1966, there was a major court battle to stop the book, and a lawsuit filed by Jacqueline Kennedy. So. .. : the whole world knew that, for whatever reason, certain things had been omitted. (And, of course, everyone was keenly interested in just what had been omitted). So that was the ambience. Then the Manchester Book was serialized in four sections of LOOK Magazine (fall 1966) and then Manchester book itself was published--early April, 1967. So. . Krasner's timing was perfect. Along comes this article--bearing the title it did--and at a time when Lyndon Johnson was thought of as a xxxx and a war monger, and just about capable of anything. Into that environment stepped Krasner with this article that --with this last item--strained credulity, but. . when you've got a president who was asking cabinet members to come in and speak with him while he was on the toilet, believe me, folks thought anything was possible. And that's what was amazing about that piece: many people indeed wondered. . "What if. . " and "Is this possible? " If you will go two issues forward in the Realist, you will find Krasner summing up some of the feedback he got, as a result of this "crazy" article. Finally, as he himself related over a decade later in an interview in OUIE magazine: BEST EVIDENCE was published, and there, in Chapter 11, was laid out the evidence that, between Dallas and Bethesda, the throat wound was enlarged. Even Krasner, at that point, could only shake his head in disbelief. That the satire he had created dealt with an issue that was very real indeed. Everyone knows that a joke is not funny once it has to be explained. And the same goes for this particular item. All I can tell you is that it was a barometer of the times that a substantial percentage of people did not realize this item was a satire. DSL 4/2/12; 3:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

I had not known that The Realist is online now. For anyone who (like me) is interested in early assassination criticism I would suggest you check out "The Unsinkable Marguerite Oswald," from the September 1964 issue. http://www.ep.tc/realist/53/12.html The issue contains some other interesting stuff, too. (See "The Crackpot and the Evidence" on page 4.) You can access its cover page by omitting the "12.html" from the above URL, then click through the issue page by page. I called Paul Krassner when I was researching the early critics, because the copy I had of "Unsinkable" was truly horrid. He hinted that he had all issues up in his attic, or in storage, something like that -- accessible, but a major inconvenience for him to get to. Eventually I got a better copy from the UC Santa Barbara library's rare books room. But this online version is even cleaner. The article about Marguerite Oswald is really a fine article with many interesting insights. I highly recommend it. DSL 4/2/12; 3:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

There are three locations for the back (or neck) wound, depending on which evidence one takes seriously--and this is all spelled out in BEST EVIDENCE, in sections that discuss the "low"/"high" conflict. The three locations are: (1) the dot on Boswell's diagram (corroborated by what is stated in the S and O report) (2) The measurement provided by Humes, on that diagram (3) The position of the wound, as photographed And. . is one includes the Rydberg drawing. . (4) The Rybderg drawing (made by the naval artist) As you no doubt remember, the S and O report describes the wound they are talking about as an "opening" in the back. Finally, there is the fact--also discussed in B.E.--that a ruler covers the location where that "opening" would have been visible. It seems obvious that the clothing holes--shirt and jacket--correspond to the "low" location in the plethora of conflicting evidence discussed above (and which is spelled out more accurately in B.E.). In my opinion, there was a second (false) wound in the back (i.e., an error made as to where it should be located, when it was first made); and so it had to be covered with he ruler. (And yes, this would be revealed at an exhumation, which I'm not sure will ever take place). Anyway, nothing I have hurriedly written here is as accurate as the discussion(s) that take place in Best Evidence. Because of the (much stronger) evidence that the head wound was altered, AND the evidence that the throat wound was certainly altered, I do not subscribe to the notion that the multiple locations for the back wound is innocent. Of course, if I didn't believe the body was altered, then I guess I (too) would be spending my time trying to figure out how the shirt and jacket "rode up" during the shooting, which is the way many folks in fact view the issue. DSL 3/27/12; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angles, California

I think its important to understand Bill Clinton's beliefs about the Kennedy assassination, and so its for that reason, and no other, that I'm writing this brief post. Besides what he told Web Hubbell, there is this other data: (1) A very good friend of mine--the late Robert Chapman, who was also very close with Mary Ferrell--related to me his personal experiences with Bill Clinton, at a time when Clinton was a candidate for President, and would drop by Molly's the restaurant he owned in Memphis. Robert personally talked to Clinton and there's no question but that he was a closet buff, and believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK case. But now. . read on. . (2) The Clintons were close with Jacqueline Kennedy, and in August, 1993, one can find newspaper articles (and photographs) in which Jacqueline Kennedy hosted them for several hours on the family yacht. Bill Clinton (and probably Hillary, too) also spent time with Jacqueline Kennedy at her New York apartment. All this is a matter of record. (3) On the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination, with the assassination of JFK receiving a huge amount of publicity, Clinton publicly stated, in a news conference, that he believed the Warren Report, and that Oswald acted alone. Quoting now fromthe NY Times story by David Rosenbaum, which ran under the headline, “30-Year Commemoration in Dallas and Arlington: QUOTE: President Clinton, who has often said that Kennedy was his idol, intended to take no public notice of the anniversary. But at a news conference, he was asked whether he thought Kennedy was killed by a single assassin and whether he was satisfied with his own security arrangements. The President replied: "I'm satisfied with the finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I am also very satisfied with the work done by the Secret Service in my behalf." UNQUOTE On the 30th anniversary, I happened to be in Dallas, where I spoke at the ASK conference. I also attended the ceremonies at the Sixth Floor Museum, and actually met Nellie Connally. Knowing what Clinton had said to Robert Chapman, I was astounded to read--in USA Today (as I recall)--what he was then quoted as saying about the assassination. One half year later, Jacqueline Kennedy was buried at Arlington. Because of Clinton's changed position, I have always believed that Jacqueline Kennedy personally implored Clinton not to pursue the issue, because of the damage it would do to her husband's legacy. That's just my opinion. But if one draws a time line, there's a serious delay between the time the JFK Records Act was passed (and signed) --October 1992--and the time the ARRB was actually "up and running," which was about October 1994. DSL 3/27/12; 2:30 PDT Los Angeles, Calfornia

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when. Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel Daniel, Thanks for summing up—quite nicely—the evidence spelled out, in detail, in BEST EVIDENCE. (Mostly in Chapter 14). For all the reasons you set forth, I firmly believe Kennedy’s back wound is a false wound—a “false fact” (and not the only “false fact” in this case). If the back wound was man made, then the clothing holes also had to be fabricated. Of course, I do not have a witness to someone making those holes, but BEST EVIDENCE thoroughly explores the whole issue of why the clothing holes in Kennedy’s jack and shirt are “low” whereas the (supposed) bullet hole in the body (according to the finalized autopsy data) is significantly higher. I’ve always believed—and still do—that this is very telling evidence. And, of course, for years, that "low" clothing hole (joined with the original observations re the back wound) can be cited as a quick and easy way --as Salandria did back in1965, and Cliff Varnell likes to remind us today) --that the official version is just plain false. But back to the underlying issue. . : The importance of a false back wound transcends the “geometry” of the shooting. Ultimately, a false back wound implies that it was planned in advance to alter the body. That’s what Chapter 14, in BEST EVIDENCE (“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”) is all about. First, addressing a small detail: Nurse Diana Bowron was asked by Arlen Specter—more than once—whether she saw any wound on the body, other than the wound at the front of the throat, and the wound at the back of the head. Her answer was clear: no other wound. Excactly how Harrison Livinsgtone got her to say something different (some 30 years later) I have no idea. But I have heard him questioning other witnesses on tape, and it was always in a bullying, know-it-all tone. In short, his questioning was a complete joke. I do not have the tape of his first Bowron questioning, so I don’t know what he did, to set up the Q and A he claims to have had and which marked the change in her story, thirty years later. But legally, both because of the passage of time, her prior inconsistent statement, and the general way he operated, it is –imho--useless. Again, the important thing about a false back wound—and the closely related notion that a bullet was placed on a stretcher to “match” that wound (and to me, that was the "give-away")—is that it was planned in advance to alter the body; i.e, that such planning was an integral part of the crime. Moreover, any sophisticated observer can see that the FBI Summary Report of Dec 9 expresses the “solution to the assassination” in terms of what I just wrote: that a bullet matching Oswald’s rifle supposedly fell out of the wound, and was found on a stretcher at Parkland, etc. Of course, Connally was unexpectedly wounded, and so we then have a series of stories about how a bullet "supposedly" fell off his stretcher, too. As one Parkland nurse said to veteran JFK researcher Wallace Milam circa 1993--and this is from memory, but she was recalling what Doris Nelson said on that day--"I wish people would quit puttin' bullets on stretchers at this hospital." Not to realize what was going on at Parkland Hospital, in this crucial area, is to be played for a sucker. In other words, in the Kennedy case, the body of the President was not only viewed as a person to be killed, but a target to be altered—all as part of the “official explanation” of the assassination, in which Lee Oswald was “the assassin.” There are people who have a lot of trouble with that idea, and for a variety of reasons: First of all, they equate conspiracy with crossfire. And that’s just not the case. Yes, of course cross-fire indicates “a” conspiracy, but what went on in Dallas was much more than “cross fire”. It was a overt operation planned in advance, not just to murder the President, but to make it appear to be a quirk of fate, and thus to operate the U.S. line of succession through deception. Oswald was set up in advance as part of an elaborate operation to manufacture a false story about the event---and that’s why a false back wound is so important. I’ll have more to say about this in a future writing, and that includes addressing the issue of the Tague shot, the chrome indentation in the car, the full story re the wounding of Connally etc. Of course, all the psychological resistance to the notion that Kennedy’s body was viewed in advance as a target to be altered—after his murder—will dissipate (somewhat) once it is definitively proven that his body was removed from Air Force One during the relatively brief period it was on the ground, after the body was placed aboard at 2:18 CST, and prior to the swearing in at 2:47 CST. All these “body related” questions –I have found, over the years—lead to a radical way of looking at the Kennedy assassination, and many folks simply cannot “go there.” They are comfortable with the notion of “crossfire,” which then leaves them free to speculate about any old political theory they are comfortable with; whereas the very thought that it was planned in advance to alter the body is just too much. Way too much. So they would rather sit with maps of Dealey Plaza, drawing pictures of numerous shooters, stationed on various rooftops, all blasting away at once, with no bullets being found other than Oswald’s—and somehow not batting an eye, or losing any sleep over the problems with such a “reconstruction.” Again, thanks for your concise summary re the back wound. I have little time to post. So I appreciate what you did. More another time. DSL 3/27/12; 2pm PDT Los Angeles, California

You ask: "and finally, there is that pesky time thing again... what in the world where these boys doing from just before 7pm at the front of the hospital until 8pm when they finally carried in the casket... while Kellerman runs to the morgue immediately after arrival & Sibert, O'Neill and Greer bring it in 45 mins earlier....." Please see Chapter 16 of BEST EVIDENCE. I interviewed all members of the MDW casket (starting in 1967). And what they experienced is all spelled out in great detail there. An admiral (Admiral Galloway) drove the ambulance with the Dallas casket away; then engaged in some kind of evasive maneuvers. So the MDW team "lost" the ambulance. Some higher up told them that they had followed "the wrong ambulance. . the decoy." It took some 45 minutes before they re-connected with the "correct" ambulance, the one with the Dallas casket, and which now had the body inside. Coast Guardsman Barnum's report--which I obtained, and quote from--is very illuminating. It was written in December, 1963, and records all the shenanigans, in considerable detail. DSL 3/25/12; 2 AM PDT See my post #5, on this thread, which I just modified and expanded, in an attempt to address your question(s). You are asking reasonable questions, but the answers--as far as I know--are not known. It is critical to read Chapter 28, of BEST EVIDENCE, where I laid out the data of what is known, drew some important time lines, and attempted to address these questions. Obviously, subsequent to the body originally being delivered to the Bethesda morgue (circa 6:35 PM, per the Boyajian report) the body was returned to the Dallas casket--after it had arrived, circa 7:17 PM, per the FBI information, and after those two agents had been asked to leave the room, so that X-rays could be taken. After they had gone, the body then must have been returned to the Dallas casket. Then (someone --we do not know who--probably placed that casket on a dolly, and rolled that casket (i.e., Dallas casket, now containing JFK's body), back to some entrance (not necessarily the morgue entrance) and returned it to the (or "a") naval ambulance. Such an event must have happened to explain what then transpired. That ambulance must have been driven either to the front of Bethesda, or to the morgue loading dock, so the MDW casket team (who gave various accounts of how they had "lost" the Dallas casket) could then "find" that ambulance, and escort the Dallas casket (now, with the body inside) back into the morgue. According to their report, that event occurred at 8 P.M.. This whole business of returning the Dallas casket to a (or "the") naval ambulance was probably treated as a tightly guarded event. It is highly unlikely that a whole group of people (e.g., "sailors") knew about it. My own opinion is that it was probably handled by Admiral Galloway himself, with one or two others, very likely Kellerman. To this day, we simply do not know who returned the casket to the naval ambulance--just that such an event must have occurred. To recap: All we know for sure is that the MDW casket team "lost" the Dallas coffin for about 50m minutes, and then "found" it just prior to 8 PM. That's what I learned from the MDW interviews I conducted --and it is all laid out in Chapter 16 of BEST EVIDENCE. The return of the Dallas casket to the naval ambulance is one of those events that was "off the record," and successfully "hidden from history," if I may coin a phrase. It is also important to understand that Commander Humes was very likely privy to these shenanigans--how could he not be? Anyway, in order to understand "what Humes knew, and when he knew it," one must be sensitive to he covered his tush just in case the matter came up. In short, one must sensitive to his "Humes speak." He built into his own testimony an "explanation," should the matter ever come up in the future. Please note this Q and A (which I spelled out in Chapter 28, referred to above): Specter: Tell us who else in a general way was present at the time the autopsy was conducted in addition to you three doctors, please? Humes: I must preface by saying it will be somewhat incomplete. My particular interest was on the examination of the president and not of the security measures of the other people who were present." (2 WCH 349) DSL 3/25/12; 11:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

You ask: "and finally, there is that pesky time thing again... what in the world where these boys doing from just before 7pm at the front of the hospital until 8pm when they finally carried in the casket... while Kellerman runs to the morgue immediately after arrival & Sibert, O'Neill and Greer bring it in 45 mins earlier....." Please see Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, titled "Chain of Possession: The Missing Link" and deals with the "Decoy Ambulance." I interviewed all members of the MDW casket, and what they experienced is all spelled out in considerable detail there. At about 7:12 PM, an admiral (Admiral Galloway) drove the ambulance with the Dallas casket (and that had arrived at 6:55 PM, with RFK and Jacqueline Kennedy) away from the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. That naval ambulance (with the casket inside) engaged in some kind of evasive maneuvers. So the MDW team "lost" the ambulance. When they returned to the front of the hospital, some higher up told them that they had followed "the wrong ambulance. . the decoy." It took some 45 minutes before they re-connected with the "correct" ambulance, the one with the Dallas casket, and which now had the body inside. Coast Guardsman Barnum's report--which I obtained, and quote from--is very illuminating. It was written in December, 1963, and records all the shenanigans, in considerable detail. There were two round-trips between the front of the hospital, and the back, seeking the "correct" naval ambulance. When they finally "found it," they brought in the Dallas casket, which --by that time--had the President's body inside. I believe the question you are asking is: who put the President's body back into the Dallas casket (i.e., how was that done), and who brought the Dallas casket back outside and put it back in the (or "a") naval ambulance. The short answer is: I don't know, and I know of no official report that explains that event. To understand the juggling and deception that was taking place, you should read (and study) chapter 28 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled "The Clandestine Intermission Hypothesis." Therein, you will find critical evidence and time lines. In the very first Time Magazine story about BEST EVIDENCE (circa Jan 12, 1981), the article notes the fact that one witness (and it may be O'Connor, I do not remember at this writing) talked of information that a casket was "rushed" from the morgue area to the Emergency Room area of the hospital. I've always assumed that is the "missing link" in the chain of events, but --to this day--we do not know (certainly I do not know) how the Dallas casket was "returned" to the naval ambulance, who may have witnessed that, or what excuse was manufactured to explain such an event. DSL 3/25/12; 2 AM PDT