David Lifton

I interpret that a bit differently. After the Clifton tapes were released in November I noted that when AF1 left Dallas with the coffin it had not been sorted out where the autopsy was going to be conducted. If I remember correctly, somewhere other than Bethesda had been suggested, but Jackie Kennedy, during the flight, made it clear that she wanted this to be done at Bethesda as president Kennedy had been serving in the US Navy during the war. It seems likely to me that this is what they were discussing in your transcript. Glenn, First of all, it's not my transcript. It's Doug's. Second, if you only have a limited knowledge of the medical evidence in this case you will probably think there's nothing amiss here, when actually there is a great deal amiss. The decision for the body/casket and only the body/casket to go (I'm not even getting into different caskets and arrival times at Bethesda yet) ANYWHERE WITHOUT JACKIE was never a decision of Jackie's. Somebody wanted the body/casket to go, ALONE, by helicopter somewhere. That idea and the many different ways it's expressed and by many different people was never Jackie's idea. It is speculated that the conspirators thought they could separate Jackie from JFK at some point in Parkland Hospital. That didn't happen. If you read everything that is available in the public record you'll read where LBJ was kind of pissed off that a Catholic ceremony was performed at Parkland as JFK was given the Last Rites. This delayed things at Parkland. I don't think there was anyone who was Catholic or knew anything about the Roman Catholic faith, its ceremonies or traditions in the group of conspirators who killed JFK. Your opinion that this is just a misunderstanding and that they eventually got it together and went to Bethesda per Jackie's request is an opinion you're being guided into believing. Harold Weisberg goes into this whole "blame the Kennedys," mentality for when and where things seem odd in his book Post-Mortem. Third, the reason I want researchers to focus in on one conversation is because something strange is going on. JFK's body is in a bronze ceremonial casket and is already aboard AF1. When it arrives and is off loaded at Andrews its empty. JFK's body arrives at Bethesda before Jackie and the Navy ambulance get there as Lifton discovered and details in his book. I believe its Dennis David, or maybe Jerrol Custer, who is carrying X-rays and/or other autopsy photos just taken of JFK when he sees Jackie and the rest ARRIVING at Bethesda. This cannot be, if JFK is in the ceremonial casket too and is just arriving. The conclusion is obvious. JFK's body got there another way. Lifton theorizes that they took JFK out of the ceremonial casket at some point while it was on board AF1, probably shortly before LBJ swears himself in as the new POTUS. So, for Roy Kellerman, who is THE central figure in the movement of JFK's body, to say something as odd as he does, that he needs to call Gerry Behn back after SOMETHING happens to "the, ah, body," is damn strange. He doesn't say, "I don't know," or "As far as I know a decision hasn't been made," or anything like that. I would recommend you do some further reading: Post-Mortem by Harold Weisberg Best Evidence by David Lifton In the eye of History by William Matson Law Inside the ARRB by Doug Horne Joe Backes Let me add a few things to what Joe Backes has said: (1) the basic source of the story (and that's what it is, a "story") that it was "Jackie's decision" that the autopsy would be held at Bethesda Naval Hospital (and not Walter Reed, which was the headquarters for AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology) and would be the logical place for a military autopsy--was Admiral George Burkely's November 27, 1963 narrative, which then became a Warren Commision exhibit (WCE 1126). Burkley's account was provided to William Manchester, and so his version of events thenbecame part of "the story" as set forth in Manchester's widely read account. Basically, what I think happened is that some "story" was agreed upon, in the first few days, and that "story" was made a part of the documentary record by Burkley. (2) Notable in Burkley's account is that (by implication, at least) he talks of two ambulances that would meet the plane. One, if the destination was Walter Reed, the other, if the destination was Bethesda Naval Hospital. Here is the exact quote: "Arrangements were made on the ground for departure to Walter Reed Army Hospital or Bethesda Naval Hospital, as the case may be." (Burkley's Narrative, dated 11/27/63, which is WC Exhibit 1126; it is also ARRB Medical Document "MD 48") Curiously, while we all saw the navy ambulance, the Air Force History--which I obtained under FOIA, and published a few lines from in BEST EVIDENCE (Chapter 31), states that the body was taken to Walter Reed). Here is the exact quote from page 120 of the U.S. Air Force History of the 1001st Air Base Wing: the body of the slain President was removed to Walter Reed General Hospital So obviously, something peculiar was going on (that there would be an after-action report on which the USAF historian would base that statement, which completely contradcted the event, as nationally televised. Furthermore, the USAF event appears to also contradict Admiral Burkley's narrative (which, again, employs CYA language, by stating that the body could go to either location "as the case may be." What does "as the case may be" mean? (3 ) It was X-Ray tech Jerrol Custer who said --both in his original 1979 telephone interview with me, and then again in our October, 1980 filmed interview--that he was passing through the Bethesda lobby, with some x-rays, when he saw the ambulance parked outside, and Jackie crossing the lobby (4) It was Dennis David, who had already witnessed offload at the rear, who was standing in the Bethesda rotunda, and looking down on the lobby, when Jackie crossed the lobby. I consider Custer and David to be akin to "time-clocks" that are punched in two places--and which establish this critically important sequence: first, the arrival of the black hearse with the shipping casket, at the back of Bethesda Naval Hospital; and then, the arrival of the naval ambulance (at 6:55 pm EST) at the front of the hospital. In fact, there's a third witness, and he is just as important, if not more so. Within days of the publication of BEST EVIDENCE, and while I was in Los Angeles on my first book tour, I received a call from a reporter in the mid-west. He told me that they were about to run a story confirming what had just been released in my book. A local man, he said, was part of the group that met the black hearse at the rear of the hospital, had actually helped carry in the shipping casket, and knew about the "two ambulance" story. He gave me his name (Donald Rebentisch), and was calling for reaction. Of course, I was pleased, and said so, but also asked for contact information with this new witness, because I was anxious to speak with him before he received calls from other reporters; and, hopefully, before he even read my book. (The book had received a full two-page spread in Time Magazine, and that was what had elicted this reaction from this witness, and others as well--in effect, that "yes," they knew all about the two ambulance business, because they had been at Bethesda that night. At the time, as noted, I was in Los Angeles, and was staying in a nice hotel. I set aside some time, hooked up a recorder, and had a wonderful "on the record" interview with Rebentish, who had met the black hearse, and participated with the offloading of the shipping casket. Then, after that event, he had gone up to either the rotunda or the lobby, and witnessed Jacqueline Kennedy, who had just exited the ambulance (with Robert Kennedy) at the elevator bank, and about to enter the elevators to go to the presidential suite upstairs. About a month later, and in conjunction with another news organization, I interviewed this man, on camera. Later, I learned that Rebentisch in a wire service account, but I had this very fine and most detailed interview with him, from January 24, 1981. Unfortunately, the entire interview was recorded on a SONY micro-cassette, and it ended up in a storage box. Some months ago, it turned up, and--through the expertise of my friend Pat Valentino--it was transferred to a full sized cassette, and he made a detailed transcript. I mentioned Rebentisch briefly in the 1982 Epilogue to Best Evidence, and I will be including him in a future edition of BEST EVIDENCE). Between Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Rebentisch, and the Boyajian report (which specifies the time of arrival of the body as 6:35 PM EST) I don't think there can be any doubt but that President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda a good 20 minutes before the naval ambulance containing the Dallas casket. Although this is now a well publicized fact (my publisher ran ads in many major newspapers, showing the Andrews offload and with the headline, "The Coffin Was Empty") I don't think people fully understand the implications. IMHO: THere is no "innocent explanation" for this state of affairs. The implication is that the President's body was removed from the Dallas casket, sometime between 2:18 CST, when it was placed on board in Dallas (with SS Agent Kellerman at the head of the coffin, as photographed by White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, who photographed the Dallas onload) and 2:47 PM, the time of takeoff. It was during that period--a time segment that included he swearing in of Lyndon Johnson--that President Kennedy's body was somehow removed from the Dallas coffin. It didn't happen by magic; and I now have considerably more information as to what happened. Stay tuned. DSL 3/18/12; 11:20 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

The Air Force One at the Reagan Library is nearly identical to the one used on 11-22-63. It's quite confined inside. It's hard to imagine any significant movement of any type in the front or the back or the plane that people in the middle of the plane wouldn't know about. My two cents. Pat, Your statement as to what is "hard to imagine" does not address the logic of the situation. The body was in the Dallas casket when it was placed aboard Air Force One, at 2:18 CST. That's just a fact. Based on the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda, the body was NOT in the Dallas casket when the naval ambulance arrived, with that same casket, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, at 6:55 PM EST. Moreover: within minutes of the Kennedy party boarding AF-1 in Dallas, they were told the flight would have to be delayed. Why? Because (they were told) with Attorney General Robert Kennedy's approval (and even, in some accounts, at his suggestion), there would have to be a swearing in. As I'm sure you well know, this statement--which LBJ repeatedly made, and attributed to RFK--is hotly disputed by him (and others). So that was the reason why everyone was told they should come to the forward part part of the aircraft: because Lyndon was being sworn in. So: At issue here is not just the mechanical explanation as to how the body was removed from the casket (it certainly did not happen by magic). At issue is whether the entire swearing in aboard AF-1 was contrived, and used as part of a deception mechanism to get the body out of the casket, and moved elsewhere, prior to the (Dallas) takeoff of Air Force One. DSL 3/18/12; 2:25 PM PST Los Angeles, California

That's an entirely different matter. I believe you're thinking of the account of Richard Lipsey, the aide to General Wehle, the Commanding Officer of Military District Washington, the Army official in charge of the multi-service casket team. Lipsey told the HSCA--during his HSCA interview in 1978 (which he insisted be tape recorded, which was done) and then repeated to me in 1979 (in our telephone interivew)--that at a meeting of officials at Andrews, at the control center, and prior to the arrival of AF-1, plans were made for two ambulances to meet the plane, and that one was to be a "decoy." So that (I believe) is what you are referring to. Also: there was no mention made (in Lipsey's account) of any "decoy casket." Just two ambulances, one of which was referred to as "the decoy." So what we're talking about here is the modality for an offload. One other matter: Lipsey's statement to me--made, made in our 1979 telephone interview--was in BEST EVIDENCE, published in January, 1981. That same statement, made to the HSCA in January 1978, wasn't released until 1993, after the JFK Records Act. So, to some researchers following the unfolding debate, the discovery, some 12 years after I interviewed Lipsey, that he had said the same thing to the HSCA, came as corroboration of sorts, of something I had already published, and that came as something that was rather startling. Anyway, that's what Lipsey told the HSCA (Jan 1978) and me (1979). The main point is: military officials at Andrews were talking about the use of two ambulances, one referred to as "the decoy", prior to the arrival of Air Force One. This also bears on the question of what else might on a full, unredacted version of the Air Force One radio transmissions, if such ever became available. DSL DSL

Yes, President Kennedy's body was inside the Dallas coffin at the time of the "hallway confrontation" of which you speak at Parkland Hospital (and which was described so graphically --and for the first time, so publicly--in William Manchster's Death of a President, published in March, 1967. The large Dallas coffin had just been rolled out of ER 1 (Parkland Hospital's "Emergency Room #1"). There, the body had been placed inside the large, and rather expensive, bronze coffin. There is no evidence that--at ER-1, and at that time--there was any subterfuge involved; i.e., that the body was not placed in the coffin as those present state it was. CHAIN OF POSSESSION - - A POWERFUL CONCEPT What all this goes to show is the power of “following the body”—i.e., playing close attention to the “chain of possession.” Specifically: indisputable documentary evidence established (as set forth in my previous post that—based on the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda Naval Hospital—the naval ambulance arrived at Bethesda with an empty coffin. The logic of the situation—as stated in BEST EVIDENCE—is simply this: an empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance means an empty coffin on take-off from Dallas. But the coffin was definitely not empty at 2:18 PM CST, when (at Love Field) it was placed aboard Air Force One. And therein lies a major key to the Kennedy case: something must have happened between 2:18 CST, when the coffin was placed aboard AF-1, and 2:47 PM CST, when AF-1 took off. Just about all of this was laid out, in Chapter 31 of BEST EVIDENCE (“The When and Where Problem Reconsidered”). Here’s what I wrote, by way of conclusion: If my analysis was correct, the President’s body was inside the Dallas casket when it was put aboard Air Force One at 2:18, but was no longer inside the casket at 2:47, as the plane rolled down the runway. I was positive of the validity of that statement when I wrote it in 1980; I stand behind it today. DSL 3/16/12; 9 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

About the radio transmissions made by Roy Kellerman: Every word spoken by SS Agent Roy Kellerman is important, because (a) he was the senior agent on the Dallas trip and (b ) President Kennedy's body was in the Dallas coffin when it was placed aboard Air Force One at 2:18 PM CST, and was not in that coffin when AF-1 took off at 2:47 PM. That fact can be stated with confidence because of the evidence of the sequence of arrivals --of body and coffin--at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as first published in BEST EVIDENCE in January, 1981. Here is that data: (a) Air Force One arrived at Andrews at (approx) 6 P.M. EST - -this was a nationally televised event. The Dallas coffin was then offloaded and carried the few yards to a naval ambulance. Jacqueline Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Air Force aide McHugh got into that ambulance. Driving that ambulance was Greer, Burkley was in the front seat, and so was Kellerman. (b ) That naval ambulance pulled away from the side of AF-1 at 6:10 PM EST --again, a nationally televised event (c ) The arrival of JFK's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital - 6:35 PM PST This was not televised, and is something we know from various reports. The President's body was delivered to the rear of Bethesda Naval Hospital in another vehicle -- a black hearse--at 6:35 PM. It was in a shipping casket. Inside that black hearse were some half dozen men in plain clothes. The arrival of the black hearse, with the shipping casket, some 20 minutes before the arrival of the naval ambulance containing Jacqueline Kennedy, RFK, and the Dallas casket, was witnessed by Dennis David, who was Chief of the Day at Bethesda. His account (first provided to me in a telephone interview in July, 1979, and then on camera in October, 1980) is published verbatim in Chapter 25 of BEST EVIDENCE. The time of arrival is documented in the report of Marine Sergeant Robert Boyajian, the NCOIC (non-commissioned officer in charge) of the Marine security detail. This report was first unearthed by the ARRB, circa 1998. The shipping casket was brought to the morgue, and opened. This event was witnessed by Paul O'Connor, who was inside the Bethesda morgue, and helped open the shipping casket. Inside the shipping casket was a body bag--and inside the body bag was President Kennedy's body. The cranium was empty. These facts were provided to the HSCA by O'Connor (1977 and 1978) , and are in the HSCA Outside Contact Report of O'Connor, first released in 1993 under the JFK Records Act. They were also stated in Florida newspaper interviews, circa 1978. They were provided to me in a detailed telephone interview in August, 1978, and are set forth in Chapter 26 of BEST EVIDENCE. These facts establish that President Kennedy's body arrived in a different coffin than the one it was in when it left Dallas, and wrapped differently (not in sheets, but in a body bag) The naval ambulance containing the Dallas coffin, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy, arrived at Bethesda at 6:53-6:55 PM EST. That fact was witnessed and reported by news reporters present at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Since the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital some 20 minutes before the arrival of the Dallas casket, it is clear that the Dallas casket offloaded from Air Force One after the plane rolled to a halt at 6:04 PM EST at Andrews Air Force Base was empty. But the Dallas coffin placed aboard the plane at 2:18 PM CST was not empty. It definitely contained President Kennedy's body. That coffin had just arrived from Parkland Hospital, and it left Parkland Hospital with the body inside. From this data it is clear that something happened prior to take off at Love Field. Something happened, aboard Air Force One, when it was parked at Love Field--between 2:18 PM and 2:47 PM EST. Just what was that "something"? I addressed this matter--but don't present an eyewitness solution to the answer--in Chapter 31 of BEST EVIDENCE. In BEST EVIDENCE, I wrote that when Air Force One rolled down the runway at Love Field, the coffin was empty. That was true when BEST EVIDENCE was published;I stand by that statement today. All I am saying here, in this post, is that Roy Kellerman, the Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge ("ATSAIC") was on the scene --at Love Field in Dallas, and at Andrews Air Force Base. He had to know what happened; he had to be part of whatever happened. And one other thing: it didn't happen by magic. The President's body was inside the Dallas coffin when it was placed aboard Air Force One at 2:18 PM CST. The President's body was not inside that coffin when it was offloaded from Air Force One at around 6:05-6:08 PM EST at Andrews Air Force Base. The senior government official on the plane was President Lyndon Johnson. And whatever happened to President Kennedy's body aboard AF-1 could not be done without permission, i.e., without a "green light" from higher authority. There's little question in my mind that a fully unedited version of the Air Force One tapes would provide a definitive answer to the question of "what happened", and "who knew what happened" and "what justifications were provided for what happened." For now--on this newly released tape--we have Roy Kellerman speaking just three words ". . ah, the body . . ." I trust that at some date in the future, a tape will be found with many more words, even sentences, and much more information. In this context,let's recall President Kennedy's statement, quoting the Chinese proverb: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Someday, I am sure, we will be able to take many more steps on that journey towards the truth. So much, then, for the Air Force One tapes. One other matter, in the spirit of a post-script: MY INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL CHESTER CLIFTON - 7/15/1980 General Chester Clifton was the senior military aide aboard the flight. And his voice can be heard, repeatedly, on the AF-1 tapes (and in 1980, I had the "Johnson Library Version" of those tapes, first unearthed, as I recall, by JFK researcher Fred Newcomb in Los Angeles). I had studied that tape carefully, spending hours --wearing a headset--listening to every single sentence. After the manuscript to BEST EVIDENCE has been submitted (April 1, 1980), and the publication process had begun, I arranged to interview General Chester Clifton in his office, in Washington, D.C. The date was July 15, 1980, and the interview was an "on-the-record" affair. I had the Air Force One tapes with me, and a recorder to play them on. I also had a second recorder to record our interview. Everything was above board. No hidden recorders. Everything done with full permission. Clifton knew my book would soon be published. I will have much more to say about it in a future writing. When I interviewed Clifton (and again, this was six months prior to the appearance of BEST EVIDENCE in any bookstore) he had no idea of the evidence that I had ascertained re the sequence of arrivals of body and coffin at Bethesda. And one purpose of my interview was to push him hard on this question: Just what did he know? I never was able to get Clifton to admit that he had direct knowledge of what happened at the back of Air Force One. For one thing, he wasn't back there. He was at the front of the plane, where the radios were located. As I pursued the matter--very much in the manner of "Columbo" interview ("Well, sir. . I really must ask you just one more question. . " etc), and when Clifton realized how much I did know, and that I had entire chapters of my forthcoming work devoted to the sequence of arrivals of the Dallas coffin and the President's body (and that the body had arrived at Bethesda 20 minutes before the coffin), General Clifton admitted, four times, that yes, prior to takeoff in Dallas, the President's body could have been taken off Air Force One through the rear starboard door, at the back of the plane. And that he would not have known about that. One other thing: Clifton was no dummy, and he knew the centrality of the body as evidence, and the importance of the autopsy. In a letter I have a copy of, written by relative of Clifton, in which he describes what Clifton said to him after the publication of the Warren Report, this person writes that Clifton said "Do not believe the Warren Report." One other matter, and this is a post-script to my post-script: In 1985, I was at Hofstra College and attending their public symposium on the Kennedy presidency. Up on stage were several former JFK administration officials. Clifton was sitting in the audience, several rows in front of me. Under discussion was foreign policy and Vietnam. During the Q an A that followed the panel discussion, he stood up, much older looking now, and almost with his finger shaking, he told them: "I remember that President Kennedy said he would never send troops to Asia" (or words to that effect. Clifton was quite explicit and his remarks were delivered with considerable emotion). This entire matter is probably recorded on film--certainly, it would be on the audio of that memorable event. DSL 3/16/12; 5 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren ) My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork? Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK? http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html Gus Russo however makes similar charges Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it". But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho. Dawn Dawn, Darn, my intention was by no means to shock anyone the way you seem to have been? Are you alright? Beyond that, I'm really glad that I could give you a good laugh, I'm always inclined to look between my fingers whenever I can achieve that. However, I've admitted nothing - as a lawyer I would expect you to be well aware of the distinction between an admittance and a statement? No? You know, unlike what you seem to think, it's not criminal to have views about this case that differs from yours. I'm not accused of anything, as far as I understand? One thing that I can detect in this posting of yours is that this is a matter of your way or the highway. You, on the other hand, have been working hard and consistently to throw out any evidence of JVBs lies. Some time ago you commented that "we all know why you are here". Above, you are continuing along the same lines: "... who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort." You just cant help yourself, can you? If I disagree with you, I'm a CIA agent? Let's sum this up. You knew from the age of 14 that this was a conspiracy. You have an obsession with the truth. Your partner has now read two books and accordingly I do not know what I'm talking about? Moreover, it was all IN-MY-FACE? If nothing else, perhaps I'm "an asset"? Dawn Meredith, I am sincerely glad that I live in a country where I will never be at risk of having you representing me. Dawn. . do you remember the repeated episodes on Saturday Night Live, where Dan Aykroyd faces off against Jane Curtin? He makes comical faces while she talks, and finally starts his commentary with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" More and more, this thread has quickly degenerated to that level, which is both funny and sad. Glenn is the agnostic; you have a tremendous sense of certainty and the correctness of your beliefs (yet, apparently are partial to JVB who, imho--oh, forget that--is without question, a complete fraud). Very smart, I might add; and a good researcher, in some ways. . but I digress. . ) FWIW: A person has the right to be an agnostic. They also have the right to hold a completely opposite view. Yesterday, I received a critical document from an agnostic friend of mine--something truly important. I (and another researcher with years of experience) thought this item did not exist. But, it turned out, he had it. And had received it years ago under a rather routine FOIA request. He sent me a nice note saying "Email me when you figure this out". . and of course I will. I cannot begin to tell you how much I have benefited from relationships with certain agnostic friends, and with lone nutters, too. There's a whole spectrum of views and people on this case. That's just the way the world is--and it doesn't just apply to the JFK assassination. DSL

DUPE POST--DELETED

Bill: Luttwak's book is very important. I first bought it when published in 1968, and gave it very close study. Although obviously not written with the JFK assassination in mind, Luttwak's book applies to many critical aspects of the Kennedy case, including the planning of the Texas trip, the motorcade, the autopsy, and the journey of the cabinet plane to Tokyo (with so many of Kennedy’s key advisers on board). IMHO: Its a critically important work, not only as to specifics, but for the mindset involved, in coup planning. My advice: get a copy--a used copy is fine--sit down in a quiet place, and prepare to read and study this book. Then go back and study whatever aspect of the Kennedy case is your cup of tea. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. DSL

Doesn't anybody want to talk about the recently discovered Clifton copy of the radio tapes? Here's what Doug Horne has to say about some of it: Air Force One Radio Transcripts - Reopen KENNEDY CASE! Bill, The Clifton AF1 transcripts are interesting, particularly the newfound information about Col. Dorman trying to get in contact with Gen. LeMay. One question for you, Bill. Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but if you wouldn't mind hazarding a guess, what percentage of all of the AF1 communications do you think are missing from the Clifton recording? 5%, 10%? Also, do you think it is possible that the complete recording still exists (among the materials to be released in 2017)? Thanks, Bill. Mike Hello Mike, As I understand it, there were three (3) channels going, at 2 hrs and 15 minutes per channel. That would mean a total of six hours and 45 minutes worth of radio traffic. Therefore (and now relying on the "Clifton version" of the tape) there are over 3 hours of material which are missing. By no means am I saying that every single minute of that 3 hours is critically important, but I think quite a bit is indeed very important. Relying purely on memory here (from my past reading of various memoirs), I believe that there would be critical transmissions between Lyndon Johnson and either McGeorge Bundy and/or Secretary Defense McNamara. And Lord only knows what else is gone. If what Theodore White originally reported (in The Making of the President 1964) is accurate, there may well be voice transmissions echoing the theme that was later written, by Katzenbach, that it is important to make the world believe that this was the world of one man, of Oswald, etc etc. Of course, I don't know the details, and am --to some extent--speculating, but I'm providing here my "best guess" as to the sort of transmissions that may be on the original fully unredacted tapes. I also call your attention to the information in Manchester's book, DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, which describes how the order was given that the locks be changed on critical White House safes for all information, starting at 1 p.m., CST (as I recall). In other words, a line was being drawn between the what Kennedy (and his brother) "knew" and what the new President would (or legitimately could) know. In a word, I think some of these transmissions would be nothing less than explosive (and, to use current vernacular, be of a "game-changing" nature) and lead directly to a debate as to who knew what, and when, etc. Do I believe that the original unredacted tapes exist? Yes, I do--but not necessarily in government possession, and I make this statement simply based on human nature. Very likely, there's someone "out there" who made copies of materials that he (or she) very likely realized were historically important and irreplaceable. But besides the "private bootlegger" scenario, I also wonder what might actually exist in National Security Council files, and whether that might be a bureaucratic hiding place for critical data. I say that based on a reading of David Belin's "Final Verdict" which, as I recall, laid out his battle to obtain information from those files about the Castro plots. So. . .those are my thoughts about the audio. (1) Hours are missing (2) They contain critically important information (3) They were deliberately edited to eliminate the critical conversations that Lydon Johnson had with McGeorge Bundy (JFK's National Security adviser) and/or McNamara, which would bear directly on the legitimacy of his accession to the Presidency, depending on what "version" of the assassination one believed in. DSL 3/6/12; 8:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

FWIW (and by way of background): I first read The Advance Man, published in 1971, within days of its publication. The chapter on Dallas really blew me away, because it was the first time I had any idea of the extent of the argument about the choice of luncheon site (i.e., as between the Woman’s Building, which was by Fair Park, and the Trade Mart). Although this was mentioned, almost in passing, in Manchester’s book (1967), the details were not provided. Also, Bruno (and this is hard to believe) was not interviewed by the FBI, and he was not called as a Warren Commission witness. (This failure to call Bruno as a witness was, IMHO, not an accident. How could the WC staff not know who the President’s advance man was?? That whole idea is absurd.) In 1971, I (and a good friend of mine) managed to get into a reception when Bruno visited Los Angeles. I had a few words with him—alone-but he absolutely refused to speak about it. I have memos on all this, but the essence of what he said was something to the effect, “Yes, you’re a student of this; but I lived through it.” BRUNO'S "Take" ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION If you read Advance Man, you will see that –at the time (and, unfortunately, ever since)—Bruno apparently believed that what he apparently viewed as the accidental decision that JFK would speak at one location rather than the other led to JFK’s motorcade passing in front of the location where Oswald was employed; and hence, his much beloved president’s assassination. January 1977: My Meeting with HSCA Attorney Belford Lawson In January, 1977, shortly after the inception of the HSCA, I went to Washington and had an extensive multi-hour meeting with HSCA attorney Belford Lawson, who was in charge of the “parade route planning” aspect of the HSCA investigation. To my considerable surprise, Lawson had never heard of Jerry Bruno (or of his book). Let me repeat that: Lawson, who was in charge of the HSCA trip planning investigation, had never heard of Jerry Bruno, or his book “Advance Man.” At that meeting, I made quite sure all that changed. I made an emphatic presentation as to who Bruno was, his importance, and the importance of the book he had written. Lawson then wrote a three-page memo about our meeting (See JFK Record Number 180-10089-10245) in which (as I recall) he mentions my statements about Bruno, and the importance of calling Bruno as a witness. (My meeting had a wider scope. I told Lawson it was very important that the HSCA view the JFK Texas trip –with five cities (and two motorcades in each city, for a total of 10 motorcades)—provided a whole lot of “redundancy” for anyone planning a “motorcade assassination. I can’t pursue the matter in this post, but –certainly in 1977—it seemed like something that had to be pursued. Lawson was skeptical, but seemed quite interested. Also: by that time, I was well into my research on autopsy falsification, and was working on the manuscript that was completed in April, 1980, and was published in January 1981 as BEST EVIDENCE. I did not share any of that with Bruno—although I did do just that with Blakey, and other members of the staff, the next year. My point is: I had plenty of reasons for believing that if the plot was directed not just “at the President’ but included a plan to falsify the autopsy, then it could have happened in any number of cities, depending on the political climate, whether the local police department could be utilized, etc. As former FBI agent Bill Turner said to me some three decades ago, if the Secret Service was involved, then the Kennedy assassination was “like a floating crap game.” But back to Bruno, and my lobbying effort(s) to make sure that he was deposed. August, 1978: BRUNO DEPOSED (and other related depositions) Bruno was in fact interviewed and deposed (Aug, 1978 as I recall) but none of it was published; and because of the Blakey “50 year lockup”—those vital records did not become available until the JFK Records Act was passed (1992), and then implemented (1993). Not only is the Bruno deposition of critical importance, but in addition, calling Bruno then led to other witnesses being deposed. So there are also collateral documents (from Bruno) plus the deposition of Bill Moyers, Betty Harris, etc. These research materials are important to anyone studying the assassination, and addressing the subject of how the decision was made to go to Texas, how Dallas was included, how the luncheon site was selected, and how the motorcade was planned. I have studied all this material extremely carefully, and supplemented that study by a close analysis of all “trip planning stories” that appeared in both Dallas newspapers (and the newspapers of the other Texas cities as well). In other words, these materials cannot be studied out of context of the numerous news articles being published in the days and weeks leading up to November 22, 1963. SOME LESSONS THAT CAN BE LEARNED (about "trip planning") This material makes clear there was no “last minute change” in the motorcade route (as has been sometimes alleged). What DID happen is that in early November (about Nov 7 or so) Bruno’s plan to have JFK speak at the Woman’s Building was nixed, and from that point forward, it was—basically—the Trade Mart as the location that the Dallas business leaders (and Connally, too) wanted. There is much else that can be said. Indeed, a whole book can be written devoted entirely to the subject of (a) why Kennedy went to Texas and (b ) how the luncheon site was selected and (c ) how the motorcade route was selected. In short: “Trip Planning” could be a Master’s thesis (at least) and even a Ph.D thesis. I know. I’ve been through all this material with a fine tooth comb. HOW THE HSCA STAFF REPORT (March 1979) TREATS THE EVIDENCE But now back to 1970: When the HSCA report was released (July, 1979) I was very disappointed to see that Belford Lawson (who wrote what was published) suddenly became “goody-two-shoes” and took the position that it was all happenstance, and innocent politics. (See HSCA Volume 11, “Politics and Presidential Protection: The Motorcade”—Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, March 1979 etc.) Lawson is entitled to his opinion, of course, but what I found really deplorable was that the testimony of Bruno, Moyers, Betty Harris, etc., plus a host of related documents were not published in the HSCA volumes. Instead, because of what I call the “Blakey lockup,” all of that was sequestered for 50 years—and would have remained unavailable, had it not been for Oliver Stone’s movie , JFK, the public outrage that followed, and the subsequent passage of the JFK Records Act. WHAT THE PUBLIC KNEW AND WHEN THEY KNEW IT That would be the equivalent of an entire section of the Warren Report being published, but, when it came to the underlying documents, they were not only “not published” (i.e., in the 26 volumes) but unavailable at the National Archives. That’s what HSCA General Counsel Robert Blakey’s policies led to. I made a big point of this when I testified before the ARRB in September, 1996: That it was 1971, when I first read Bruno’s book; That it was January, 1977, when I met with Lawson, at the HSCA offices in Washington, D.C. That it was August, 1978, when Bruno testified That it was July, 1979 when I (and everyone else, for that matter) could read “Lawson’s take-away” on what all this meant; And, finally, That it was 1993 (1995, as a practical matter) when it was finally possible to see Bruno’s (Aug 1978) testimony. Setting aside (for the moment) the facts as to how this trip was planned, one must ask: Is that the way to run an investigation? Was this proper public policy, for an investigation that the taxpayers paid for, and was supposed to bring us "the truth"? This is the investigation we (first generation researchers) lobbied for, and--thanks largely to Robert Blakey and his "father knows best" policies--what I have described above is actually happened once that investigation actually took place. Again may I point out: were it not for Oliver Stone's movie, and the JFK Records Act, we would still not have access to these vital records for another 15 years. DSL 3/1/12; 8:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Excellent post, David Lifton! It is just another example why you make such a valuable contributor to Education Forum. Also, Constance Kritzberg, who was a reporter for the Dallas Times-Herald on 11/22/63 told me that the Women's Pavilion was a dated, unattractive location for a Presidential speech. The ceilings were low and the floor was red-stained concrete. The Trade Mart was a much more modern, showy place to host a presidential luncheon. What I am getting at, is the change of venue may have occurred for purely cosmetic reasons, not necessarily for reasons of facilitating the JFK assassination. Thanks much for your compliments, Robert. Let's now dialogue a bit about the matter you raised, inspired by Connie Kritz's observations. The change of venue “for cosmetic reasons” does not explain the facts in this case, if one takes into account chronology. The fact that the Woman’s building was “unattractive”—physically—is really beside the point. The issue is not whether there “might be” an innocent reason for choosing the Dallas Trade Mart. Rather the issue is whether, from the outset, this was a “designer shooting”—with the shooting planned in advance to take place on the north side of Dealey Plaza—and whether Jerry Bruno (in early November) threw a monkey wrench into some well laid plans by choosing the Woman’s Building over the Dallas Trade Mart. The underlying fact is that the luncheon site decision determined the terminus of the motorcade—hence, it was a major factor in the geometry of the shooting. To evaluate the situation properly, one has to look at the chronology. The chronology suggests—but by itself does not prove—that there was such a plan. All the events, of course, and when considered individually, look “normal” and can be viewed as merely “political.” At issue is whether there was an assassination plan functioning behind the “politics"--and if so, who was witting, and who was not; who was operating in the service of some hidden agenda, and who were the unwitting dupes. CHRONOLOGY JFK’s final decision that yes, he would visit Texas, and that (yes) Dallas would be included, was made on September 25, 1963. It appeared in all the newspapers on the morning of September 26, 1963. Oswald’s Mexico City trip occurred between September 27 and October 3, 1963. This trip cannot be ignored if there was a plot to murder the president. It is an essential part of the background being created prior to the murder, to “internationalize” Oswald (or “Cubanize” Oswald, to use a term originated by Peter Dale Scott, I believe) prior to JFK’s murder. Oswald began work at the TSBD on October 16, 1963. This job cannot be accidental if there was a plot. Oswald was the only defector with rifle training in a nation of 140 million people. In other words, the crossed-paths situation cannot be an accident—if there was a plot. Bruno expressed his preference for the Woman's Building in early November. An argument ensued, he was finally overruled, and the Trade Mart Decision was made on November 14. That determined the terminus of the motorcade, and practically insured that the motorcade would traverse Dealey Plaza on the north side (as it did) en route to Stemmons Freeway. CHRONOLOGY.. .NOW WITH THE "GEOMETRY" ADDED Once these factors are taken into account, it becomes clear the magnitude of the problem caused by Jerry Bruno’s arriving in Texas in late October, and insisting, in early November, that the President speak at the Woman’s Building, in a different area of town. That would have changed the geometry of the shooting completely. To understand that, you need to consult maps of Dallas, from which it becomes evident that, if the Woman's Building was the motorcade terminus, you could still pass through Dealey Plaza, but you'd have to travel on Main Street in the opposite direction, en route to a luncheon at the Woman's Building. So: First would come Dealey Plaza, and then a "Main Street" motorcade, but going west-to-east, not east to west, as the motorcade traveled on November 22, 1963. But this then would change everything as to how the shooting would work on Dealey Plaza. Think about it. If the plan was to have a “motorcade assassination” on the north side of Dealey Plaza (i.e., "in front of the building where LHO was employed)—after a “downtown ‘noontime’ motorcade”—then Bruno’s preference for the Woman’s Building (in a different area of town) would have resulted in a downtown motorcade that traveled on Main Street but in the opposite direction (i.e., west-to-east, rather than east-to-west). Specifically, it would have resulted in a motorcade entering the downtown area from Dealey Plaza rather traversing Dealey Plaza after a downtown motorcade. To repeat: Bruno’s choice of a motorcade terminus (the Woman’s Building) would have led to the motorcade traversing Dealey Plaza on the south side (on Commerce Street) and then going west-to-east on Main Street. To repeat: the choice of the Woman’s Building would mean that the motorcade would enter Dealey Plaza at the Triple Underpass area (en route to Main Street). That would mean traversing Dealey Plaza west-to-east on the south side (i.e., via Commerce Street), rather than east-to-west on the north side (on Elm, as it did on November 22, thus passing in front of the TSBD). I’m not saying that, if Bruno had gotten his way, one could not tweak Oswald’s job location, or position, to make a (south side of) Dealey Plaza shooting work—i.e., if the motorcade traversed Dealey Plaza on the south side, rather than the north side. I’m simply saying it would unnecessarily complicate matters. THE EFFECT OF BRUNO'S INTERFERENCE So the solution to Bruno’s unexpected interference was to lobby hard, using genuine political reasons, for the superiority of the Dallas Trade Mart as the luncheon site (and the motorcade terminus) so that the motorcade would pass through downtown Dallas east-to-west (on Main Street) and then traverse Dealey Plaza east-to-west, and on the north side (as it did). If I’m correct, overturning Bruno’s preference became an important matter, but of course those involved had to marshal legitimate political reasons for doing so. (And that’s what appears to have happened in this case: it was argued (and legitimately so) that the Trade Mart was prettier, was a superior luncheon site, etc.) WAS IT REALLY COINCIDENCE? Consider now what you have written: : “What I am getting at, is the change of venue may have occurred for purely cosmetic reasons, not necessarily for reasons of facilitating the JFK assassination,” I think that is entirely incorrect, because that is tantamount to saying that the geometry of the Kennedy assassination occurred by coincidence. In view of the special person Oswald was, the artificiality of the "crossed-paths situation," the evidence that this was a “designer shooting”, and the aforementioned chronology, I find that to be highly implausible. In other words, if this was really a "coup d'etat," Robert--a political murder disguised as a "quirk of fate"--then these crucial issues were almost certainly not left to chance, "coincidence" does not explain the result, and such a fundamental decision about the luncheon site (over the objections of President Kennedy's own advance man) was not made for "cosmetic reasons." DSL 3/3/12; 7 pm PST Los Angeles, California

FWIW (and by way of background): I first read The Advance Man, published in 1971, within days of its publication. The chapter on Dallas really blew me away, because it was the first time I had any idea of the extent of the argument about the choice of luncheon site (i.e., as between the Woman’s Building, which was by Fair Park, and the Trade Mart). Although this was mentioned, almost in passing, in Manchester’s book (1967), the details were not provided. Also, Bruno (and this is hard to believe) was not interviewed by the FBI, and he was not called as a Warren Commission witness. (This failure to call Bruno as a witness was, IMHO, not an accident. How could the WC staff not know who the President’s advance man was?? That whole idea is absurd.) In 1971, I (and a good friend of mine) managed to get into a reception when Bruno visited Los Angeles. I had a few words with him—alone-but he absolutely refused to speak about it. I have memos on all this, but the essence of what he said was something to the effect, “Yes, you’re a student of this; but I lived through it.” BRUNO'S "Take" ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION If you read Advance Man, you will see that –at the time (and, unfortunately, ever since)—Bruno apparently believed that what he apparently viewed as the accidental decision that JFK would speak at one location rather than the other led to JFK’s motorcade passing in front of the location where Oswald was employed; and hence, his much beloved president’s assassination. January 1977: My Meeting with HSCA Attorney Belford Lawson In January, 1977, shortly after the inception of the HSCA, I went to Washington and had an extensive multi-hour meeting with HSCA attorney Belford Lawson, who was in charge of the “parade route planning” aspect of the HSCA investigation. To my considerable surprise, Lawson had never heard of Jerry Bruno (or of his book). Let me repeat that: Lawson, who was in charge of the HSCA trip planning investigation, had never heard of Jerry Bruno, or his book “Advance Man.” At that meeting, I made quite sure all that changed. I made an emphatic presentation as to who Bruno was, his importance, and the importance of the book he had written. Lawson then wrote a three-page memo about our meeting (See JFK Record Number 180-10089-10245) in which (as I recall) he mentions my statements about Bruno, and the importance of calling Bruno as a witness. (My meeting had a wider scope. I told Lawson it was very important that the HSCA view the JFK Texas trip –with five cities (and two motorcades in each city, for a total of 10 motorcades)—provided a whole lot of “redundancy” for anyone planning a “motorcade assassination. I can’t pursue the matter in this post, but –certainly in 1977—it seemed like something that had to be pursued. Lawson was skeptical, but seemed quite interested. Also: by that time, I was well into my research on autopsy falsification, and was working on the manuscript that was completed in April, 1980, and was published in January 1981 as BEST EVIDENCE. I did not share any of that with Bruno—although I did do just that with Blakey, and other members of the staff, the next year. My point is: I had plenty of reasons for believing that if the plot was directed not just “at the President’ but included a plan to falsify the autopsy, then it could have happened in any number of cities, depending on the political climate, whether the local police department could be utilized, etc. As former FBI agent Bill Turner said to me some three decades ago, if the Secret Service was involved, then the Kennedy assassination was “like a floating crap game.” But back to Bruno, and my lobbying effort(s) to make sure that he was deposed. August, 1978: BRUNO DEPOSED (and other related depositions) Bruno was in fact interviewed and deposed (Aug, 1978 as I recall) but none of it was published; and because of the Blakey “50 year lockup”—those vital records did not become available until the JFK Records Act was passed (1992), and then implemented (1993). Not only is the Bruno deposition of critical importance, but in addition, calling Bruno then led to other witnesses being deposed. So there are also collateral documents (from Bruno) plus the deposition of Bill Moyers, Betty Harris, etc. These research materials are important to anyone studying the assassination, and addressing the subject of how the decision was made to go to Texas, how Dallas was included, how the luncheon site was selected, and how the motorcade was planned. I have studied all this material extremely carefully, and supplemented that study by a close analysis of all “trip planning stories” that appeared in both Dallas newspapers (and the newspapers of the other Texas cities as well). In other words, these materials cannot be studied out of context of the numerous news articles being published in the days and weeks leading up to November 22, 1963. SOME LESSONS THAT CAN BE LEARNED (about "trip planning") This material makes clear there was no “last minute change” in the motorcade route (as has been sometimes alleged). What DID happen is that in early November (about Nov 7 or so) Bruno’s plan to have JFK speak at the Woman’s Building was nixed, and from that point forward, it was—basically—the Trade Mart as the location that the Dallas business leaders (and Connally, too) wanted. There is much else that can be said. Indeed, a whole book can be written devoted entirely to the subject of (a) why Kennedy went to Texas and (b ) how the luncheon site was selected and (c ) how the motorcade route was selected. In short: “Trip Planning” could be a Master’s thesis (at least) and even a Ph.D thesis. I know. I’ve been through all this material with a fine tooth comb. HOW THE HSCA STAFF REPORT (March 1979) TREATS THE EVIDENCE But now back to 1970: When the HSCA report was released (July, 1979) I was very disappointed to see that Belford Lawson (who wrote what was published) suddenly became “goody-two-shoes” and took the position that it was all happenstance, and innocent politics. (See HSCA Volume 11, “Politics and Presidential Protection: The Motorcade”—Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, March 1979 etc.) Lawson is entitled to his opinion, of course, but what I found really deplorable was that the testimony of Bruno, Moyers, Betty Harris, etc., plus a host of related documents were not published in the HSCA volumes. Instead, because of what I call the “Blakey lockup,” all of that was sequestered for 50 years—and would have remained unavailable, had it not been for Oliver Stone’s movie , JFK, the public outrage that followed, and the subsequent passage of the JFK Records Act. WHAT THE PUBLIC KNEW AND WHEN THEY KNEW IT That would be the equivalent of an entire section of the Warren Report being published, but, when it came to the underlying documents, they were not only “not published” (i.e., in the 26 volumes) but unavailable at the National Archives. That’s what HSCA General Counsel Robert Blakey’s policies led to. I made a big point of this when I testified before the ARRB in September, 1996: That it was 1971, when I first read Bruno’s book; That it was January, 1977, when I met with Lawson, at the HSCA offices in Washington, D.C. That it was August, 1978, when Bruno testified That it was July, 1979 when I (and everyone else, for that matter) could read “Lawson’s take-away” on what all this meant; And, finally, That it was 1993 (1995, as a practical matter) when it was finally possible to see Bruno’s (Aug 1978) testimony. Setting aside (for the moment) the facts as to how this trip was planned, one must ask: Is that the way to run an investigation? Was this proper public policy, for an investigation that the taxpayers paid for, and was supposed to bring us "the truth"? This is the investigation we (first generation researchers) lobbied for, and--thanks largely to Robert Blakey and his "father knows best" policies--what I have described above is actually happened once that investigation actually took place. Again may I point out: were it not for Oliver Stone's movie, and the JFK Records Act, we would still not have access to these vital records for another 15 years. DSL 3/1/12; 8:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Another related question is why they flew AF1 from Carswell to Love Field at all, I mean its only a few miles and it would have been easier to drive from Fort Worth to Dallas, except for the fact they wanted to do a motorcade through downtown Dallas and hit Dealey Plaza. And thanks for your analysis, Jim, and others. BK JFKcountercoup This is the stupidest crap I have seen on this forum since Lifton defended the Mary Bledsoe story. Jim, your whole central premise is staggeringly stupid. [snip] You're an idiot! Are you related to Robert Morrow in some way? Kelly, you could learn something from reading Bruno's book too. Joe Backes Backes, You are totally out of line, and also quite misinformed. FYI: I took a look at your "liars" website, titled "StupidShmuck dot com" Do you really think you can just list a bunch of people with whom you disagree, label them liars, call them various names, and have any credibility? Why debate with someone whose response to a contrary position is simply a bunch of name calling? DSL

DVP: What you have posted here is from UPI's "Broadcast News Desk" in Chicago. It is not the UPI "A" wire. The broadcast desk fed the info from the "A" wire, with some rewrites, to its "broadcast clients." For more on the broadcast news desk, see this link: http://www.loyno.edu/~lorenz/jfk.html DSL 2/16/12; 1:05 AM PST Los Angeles, California

Bill, The way to pursue answers to the questions you are asking is to do a "close reading" (as our friend James Angleton would say) of both the AP "A" wire and the UPI "A" wire. I did exactly that some decades back, obtaining copies of each, and then annotating them carefully and creating chronologies--and up until very recently, kept both the AP and UPI "A" wires handy almost as a "desk reference" to understanding the "real time chronology" (insofar as the release of public information was concerned) on this event. I obtained my UPI wire copy by actually visiting the UPI office in New York City, where I ended up having extensive conversations with an important vice president, who knew Merriman Smith. I don't presently remember where I obtained my AP wire from. But I can assure you that both documents are critical to understanding the event--and the AP "B" wire is also important. As I recall, the AP A wire is valuable because when a "fact" would change, the AP wire would actually run a "correction" (e.g., changing the floor on which the rifle was found, etc.) At present, both of those "desk reference" items are in some storage box, but, here are the answers (both from memory, and from detailed computer notes I made years ago) to your question(s): FIRST NEWS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN SHOT: UPI "A" wire: First UPI "A" wire transmission: Dallas, Nov. 22 (UPI) –Three shots were fired at President Kennedy’s motorcade today in downtown Dallas. JT1234PCS (NOTE: "1234 PCS" means "12:34 Central Standard time") The next UPI transmission is labeled "UPI A8N DA" and is interrupted by a "FLASH" and signed off with a time stamp of 12:39 PM CST: The first transmission (above) was the result of Merriman Smith excitedly talking to someone at the UPI Dallas office, who then typed it onto the actual teletype machine, and then pressed "send". Then came another, and that reads as follows: UPI A8N DA URGENT 1st Add Shots, Dallas (A7N) XXX Downtown Dallas. No casualties were reported. The incident occurred near the country sheriff’s office on main street, just east of an underpass leading toward the Trade Mart where the President was to MA FLASH FLASH KENNEDY SERIOUSLY WOUNDED PERHAPS SERIOUSLY PERHAPS FATALLY BY ASSASSINS BULLET JT 1239PCS Then Smith commandeered a phone at Parkland, called New York, and --as I recall--some of his next transmissions were sent from New York City. A detailed account of the goings-on at the UPI office were published in a book a few years back--"Kennedy Assassinated" by Wilborn Hampton, who was actually on the phone with Merriman Smith. (I have corresponded with Hampton, by email). Now let's turn to the AP "A" wire. Here's the way the AP wire starts, with its very first transmission at 12:40 CST (and, as I recall, this comes from Altgens, who ran to a phone, and then to his office, but I could be in error on the details. [Gary Mack probably knows this sequence very well.]) BULLETIN Dallas. Nov. 22 (AP) President Kennedy was shot today just his motorcade left downtown Dallas. Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and grabbed Mr. Kennedy. She cried, “Oh, No!” The motorcade sped [on?] D 1240 PCS NM ƒ K BULLETIN MATTER Dallas-FIRST ADD KENNEDY SHOT X X X SPED ON. AP photographer James W. Altgens said he saw blood on the President’s head. Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw the blood on the President. Altgents said he saw no one with a gun. MM 12:41 PCS A NM In both the case of AP and UPI, the initials on the typed line specifying the time of transmission are those of the teletype operator. * * * You asked: "At what time was it broadcast that Oswald had been arrested (and was a suspect) in the assassination: I made specific and detailed notes on exactly that matter--so I will now past that document right into this post: Here's the format of the information that will now follow: First AP Story Naming Oswald (2:35 PM CST) Second AP Story Naming Oswald (3:22 PM CST) (with more definite link between LHO & JFK slaying) First UPI mention of LHO (3:46 PM CST) (now portrayed as JFK's assassin, and linked to FPCC) So much for "format". Now here's the paste-in (originally, in 3 column format): Time [CST]- - - - AP/UPI- - - - - Comment FIRST AP STORY NAMING OSWALD (2:35 PM CST) (but not yet making definitive connection with JFK assn) 2:35 AP Dallas, Tex., Nov. 22 (AP) -- The Dallas Police Department today arrested a 24 year-old man, Lee H. Oswald, in connection with the slaying of a Dallas policeman shortly after President Kennedy was assassinated. He was also being interrogated to see if he had any connection with the slaying of the President. Oswald was pulled screaming and yelling from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. SECOND AP STORY NAMING OSWALD (3:22 PM CST) (With more definite link between LHO & JFK slaying) 3:22 AP ((Called by AP "first lead arrest"; this is 1st AP mention of LHO)) Dallas, Nov. 22 (AP) -- A 24-year-old man who said two years ago he wanted Russian citizenship was questioned today to see whether he had any connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. He was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald of Forth Worth. He was pulled screaming and yelling from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shortly after a Dallas policeman was shot to death. On Nov. 1, 1959, Oswald told the U.S. Embassy in Moscow he had applied for Soviet citizenship. He said he had been a tourist in Russia since October 13, that year. Oswald was reported to have a Russian wife. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed that the man held in Dallas was the same Oswald and said his mother was being taken to Dallas Police headquarters to see him. First UPI mention of LHO (3:46 PM CST) (now portrayed as JFK’s assassin, and linked to FPCC) Designated: “UPI A 104/Bulletin” ((Research Note Re UPI: Although this "3:46 PM" dispatch is the first UPI mention of Oswald, it is not the first UPI mention of an arrest in the JFK case. For that, see UPI’s 3:08 PM (CST) for completely false version of the theater arrest—but with no mention of Oswald (just a “suspect”) and with Tippit being located inside theater, shot there, and suspect being arrested there. This UPI UPI dispatch (at 3:46 PM CST) is critical because it identifies LHO as “the prime suspect” in the JFK assassination and links him to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. * * * Dallas, Nov. 22 (UPI)--Police today seized Lee H. Oswald, identified as chairman of a "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," as the prime suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy. (more) Police said Oswald, 24, was accused in the slaying of a Dallas policeman shortly after the shooting of the President. Police Capt. Pat Gannaway* said the suspect was an employee in the building where a rifle was found. Gannaway said the suspect had visited Russia and was married to a Russian. This was not immediately confirmed. (More) *Note, 8/16/06: In retrospect, it now seems clear that Gannaway, of the DPD Intelligence Division, was an important player. Note to me: remember his sitting alone with Robert Oswald, and explaining the Texas Theater arrest making plain to him that his brother had murdered a policeman (See RO’s book on this). * * * Please note: I have also examined the network broadcast tapes. In almost all cases, the network anchors were simply "reading the wires"--so it is the two wire services that are the primary sources when it comes to analyzing how the "Kennedy assassination story" was disseminated to the American public (and to the world). ALSO NOTE: I did this "AP/UPI" analysis back around 1975, and spent a lot of time entering it into my computer around starting around 1998. The key point is that both the AP and UPI "A" wire are primary sources--and better than any "secondary wire" (e.g., the "radio wire" prepared by AP for radio announcers, etc. That is a different wire service product, and is not as detailed.) Finally, this point: the UPI executive with whom I spoke, extensively, back in 1971, had a close relationship with Merriman Smith. And based on those conversations (which focused on Smith's behavior in the years following the assassination)--I had little doubt that Merriman Smith had foreknowledge of Kennedy's assassination, and was an "asset" used by those involved in this affair to "play the story" correctly from the outset (while at the same time promoting his own career, and winning a Pulitzer prize for his 'wonderful reporting'). Remember: Smith's "three shots were fired" was transmitted on the wire at 12:34 PM, which means it went from his lips to UPI's Wilborn Hampton, who took the call; then to staff editor Don Smith, who actually wrote the copy (along with Hampton, I think); and then it was handed to teletype operator Jim Tolbert, who actually punched out the words onto perforated paper, and fed the punched paper-tape into the teletype machine, pressing "send" at 12:34 PM CST. That's rather impressive. Subsequently, Merriman Smith's son --a helicopter pilot (as I recall)--was killed in Vietnam (circa 1967); and subsequent to that, Merriman Smith committed suicide. FYI: I also was in touch with Smith's wife (Gayley Smith) and from that I received further corroborating information that Merriman Smith had some kind of critical foreknowledge of this entire affair. (He also was friends with Admiral Calvin Galloway, the CO of Bethesda naval hospital.) All that, of course (the Galloway/Merriman Smith relationship, and the conversations they had, as related to me by Smith's wife, Gayley) is "another story." I hope you find this information helpful. * * * Bill: If you (or anyone reading this post) should obtain a nice pristine copy of either the UPI and/or AP A wire, or know where one exists, I would be very appreciative if you would let me know where that is available, and/or provide me with a copy. IMCO ("in my considered opinion"): Understanding the chronology of both of these wire services is critical to understanding how the media was "played" on November 22, 1963. Of course, there were probably certain other "media assets" that were utilized that day, but in this post, I have focused on the two wire services, because of the major role they played in determining the radio and TV "network coverage" that emanated from New York. DSL 2/15/12; 6:45 PM PST Los Angeles, California

Sounds a lot like the body was going from Andrews to Walter Reed, then from Walter Reed to Bethesda. I have analyzed this very carefully, conducted a number of interviews over the years, and here are my own conclusions and opinions as to what all this means: (1) As AF-1 approached Washington, D.C., it was known that the President's body was not in the coffin, and a plan was put in place to return the body to the coffin prior to the autopsy (at Bethesda)--and the fact that the coffin was empty would remain secret. (2) In order to accomplish that, it was stated that "the autopsy" would be at Walter Reed, the purpose being to bring the large Dallas coffin to Walter Reed, so that the body could be put back inside that coffin; and then brought to Bethesda. Even if this "side trip" became known, it could be ascribed to 'innocent error'--and the whole story about the President being a "Navy man" and hence the autopsy would be conducted at Bethesda. (3) Mrs.Kennedy was supposed to be separated from the Dallas coffin. To accomplish that, a ramp was ordered for the front starboard side of the plane. THis can be verified by just listening to the tape. Clifton orders just such a ramp, and for exactly that purpose. His words (as I recall): We're going to bring the First Lady off by that route. (I confirmed all this with Clifton in my July 15, 1980 in person interview). (4) A special helicopter was ordered to meet AF-1 on the starboard side. You can see the lights of that helicopter hovering on the starboard side, in some of the newsreel footage. (5 ) I have interviewed that helicopter pilot. He was from Anacostia, and the special unit to fly the President and First Lady to the mountain hideout in the event of a nuclear alert. I met with him, filmed him, and actually examined his logbook. The problem was that when he went to the starboard side, there was nobody there. So he flew back to base. The above scenario--which is what was planned--could not be carried out, however, because of the following: (a) As AF-1 approached the final spot, Jackie refused to leave by the starboard side. She insisted on leaving with the Dallas coffin. (b ) When she and Bobby stepped onto the Army lift, a second unexpected development occurred. (See [c]) (c ) A Navy ambulance, dispatched with a cardio nurse (just in case LBJ needed any medical attention) was unexpectedly (and mistakenly) moved into position by the Army lift, on the order of naval aide Tazwell Shepherd. This was unplanned. Either an Army ambulance was supposed to be there, or--more likely--the Dallas casket waa going to be moved in a helicopter. (There is genuine confusion on the AF-1 tape on this issue.) But the naval ambulance, "moving into position" (on Taz Shepherd's orders) then led to the following situation. . . (d) Jackie, spotting that ambulance, basically said: "We'll go in that." (e) The combination of Jackie (1) refusing to leave by the starboard side and (2) spotting the naval ambulance and saying "we'll go in that", resulted in the the coffin being placed in the Navy ambulance and Jackie also going in that ambulance. Once that happened, any chance of the Dallas casket going to Walter Reed vanished. The result: the coffin--which was originally going to be brought to Walter Reed, where the body would be reinserted into the coffin, and then brought to Bethesda--went directly to Bethesda Naval Hospital. That resulted in a completely confusing situation at Bethesda, with near comical overtones. You can read what happened next by going to Best Evidence (see Chapter 16, 25-28): (a) First of all, the President's body was rushed to Bethesda Naval Hospital , where it arrived (we now know) at 6:35 PM. The report of NOIC Roger Boyajian --unearthed through the excellent work of Doug Horne, at the ARRB--establishes that entry. (b ) The Naval ambulance, containing the Dallas coffin, Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, McHugh, etc. arrived at the front of the hospital at 6:55 PM. That is established through press reports and Secret Service reports. (See Chapter 16, Best Evidence, for derails) (c ) That ambulance, containing the Dallas coffin, was commandeered by Admiral Calvin Galloway, and driven around to the rear, and the Dallas coffin brought up the ramp by the loading dock, on a conveyance with rollers, at 7:17 PM EST. (That entry is documented by Sibert and O'Neill, and one or two Army reports. Again, see Chapter 16 of B.E., or Doug Horne's book, Inside the ARRB. (d) For a brief while, the FBI was kept out of the morgue. (This is reported in the Sibert and O'Neill Report, on the very first page, and I believe it to be accurate, even though O'Neill denied it). During this period, those inside the morgue were placed in another room. Then, the body was then transferred back into the Dallas coffin, brought outside, and returned to a naval ambulance--probably (though not necessarily, the same one driven by Admiral Galloway). (e) At 8PM, the tri-service casket team--which had "lost" the naval ambulance, and could not find it for some 45 minutes (See My chapter 16, where I interviewed all of them) then escorted the Dallas casket, which now contained the body, back into the morgue. This was the "official entry" and that entry occurred at 8PM, according to their report. This sequence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is thoroughly documented by 3 separate paper trails (and has been written up, in slightly different style, by Jacob Hornberger, in a series of articles on the Internet). As to all these goings on, Commander Humes, when testifying, hid behind the following figleaf, just in case all this came to light: 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) To recap the 3 casket entries, and the 3 paper trails left behind: 6:35 PM: The body was delivered, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, per the Boyajian report 7:17 PM: The Dallas casket, which was then empty, entered the morgue for the first time (per FBI Agents Sibert andO'Enill, and at least one US Army report) 8 PM: The Dallas casket, which now contained the Presidents body, entered the morgue for the second time. In short, the rigmarole of returning the body to the (empty) Dallas casket--which was originally planned to occur at Walter Reed--did not occur, because of the unexpected event(s) that occurred as Air Force One landed; at which time: (a) Jackie refused to leave by the starboard side, on the special ramp that Clifton had ordered (and you can hear him going through these instructions, more than once, on the AF-1 tapes; and (b ) Jackie was not flown away in the special helicopter that had been ordered to the starboard side, and whose pilot I have interviewed at length, both by phone, and then on camera, in 1996. Had Jackie existed on the starboard side, the public would have probably witnessed a scene in which the Dallas coffin was either choppered to Walter Reed, or--possibly--brought to Walter Reed in an Army ambulance. And that's the explanation for all the radio transmissions about "going to Walter Reed for the autopsy." It was not about having an autopsy at Walter Reed. It was bureaucratic cover for getting the body back into the Dallas coffin. Of course, when I wrote Best Evidence, and laid out the Air Force One radio transmission (as I did) in Chapter 31, I did not have all the "puzzle pieces" that I have today. Certainly, I had the "empty coffin" data--that is all laid out, starting in Chapter 25 (with the account of Dennis David)--but I did not have the starboard chopper information, and there are other puzzle pieces I did not then have, and which I will be setting forth in a future writing. (So. . ."stay tuned.") But again I emphasize: The Kennedy autopsy was never going to be done at Walter Reed. That was all "cover" for solving the "empty coffin" problem. * * * I'm positive this situation (which I have described above) is what explains the apparent "difference" between what the radio transmissions say (“Walter Reed” etc), and what actually happened ("on the ground"). I base this conclusion on not just having carefully analyzed the AF-1 tapes, but, in addition, on the following: certain research I have done on the unexpected action of naval aide Tazwell Sheperd in causing the naval ambulance with the cardio nurse to back into position on the port side of AF-1; my detailed interview with the helicopter pilot on the starboard side (from the top secret unit that was set up to fly the President, and other top officials to "the mountain hideout" in the case of nuclear war); my in-person detailed interview with General Clifton on 7/15/80; and, finally, research I have done about Jackie's refusal to exit the starboard side, despite the preparations that she do so--in the form of the ramp that was placed there (on Clifton's orders, which anyone can verify by listening to the AF-1 tape), and the helicopter that was ordered to be at that location (which I know from my detailed interviewing of the helicopter pilot). The key point here is simply this: that certain top officials--including Attorney General Robert Kennedy--were well aware that the body was not in the Dallas coffin, and were attempting to rectify that situation, without the First Lady (much less the entire nation) learning that this was so. That's what "the autopsy will be conducted at Walter Reed" was all about. (And not much more.) And that's why so many hours of "AF-1 tapes" are still "missing." As I said above: stay tuned. DSL 2/13/12; 10:30 PM PST Los Angeles, California

This is precisely why I'm arguing that you should step down Mr. Lifton (from your high horse that is). First of all, please refresh yourself with the definition of "salacious". I already know what it means and used it correctly. Second, I explained my point of view fairly completely. You, on the other hand, continue to think that JFK's alleged sexual activities are an important "piece of the puzzle. I'm sorry sir, but I know exactly why and how our President was removed from office and understanding his sex life doesn't inform me one bit. I repeat my statement for effect: by talking about JFK's sex life while ignoring his purpose, you do him a tremendous disservice. I am not suggesting we ignore history. I am not insulting any witnesses or victims. I am merely saying that the people who had him killed are using sensational headlines to diminish the man, his memory, and his mission. Willing or not, you are helping this by focusing on salacious details at the expense of the broader story. Regarding those who murdered JFK: in 2012, its quite unlikely that "the people who had him killed" are around anymore. Yet you write that "I am merely saying that the people who had him killed are using sensational headlines to diminish the man, his memory, and his mission." You're writing in the present tense, am I not correct? Well, please do note: Ms. Alford was interviewed by Meredith Viera. The show was hosted by Brian Williams. Are they among "the people who had him killed"? I would think not. . . so just what are you talking about? As my old high school English teacher used to repeatedly say: "Be specific." I think if you would do that, you would realize that these are rather empty statements. I could speculate about what I think you mean, but as actually expressed, it would appear that you have a conspiracy theory about the media outlets whose message or programming you disagree with, and even with individuals with whom you disagree. The media persons (e.g. Viera and/or Williams) are now grouped with "the people who had him killed" and individuals whose posts you don't like are labeled as "plants." I don't like to use the term paranoia, so let's use more tame language: what you're saying is not well thought out, and really does not make much sense. Alford got a book contract because she was judged credible, had an important experience to relate--not because the publisher was controlled by the CIA. The same is true of the NBC executives who made the decision to interview her, and did --imho--a very good job. I don't care for Chris Mathews views on this case, at all; and I think its ridiculous that Sy Hersh said that the two things he would never write about were UFO's and the Kennedy assassination. But these views do not justify grouping either of them among "the people who had him killed", and the same goes for those on this forum with whom you may disagree, or the people who interviewed Mimmi Alford. DSL 2/12/12; 11:30 PM PST Los Angeles, California

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters". It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however. Dawn Dawn writes: "OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around?" No, that's not what I said. In fact, that's an absurd oversimplification (and misrepresentation) of what I said. First of all, this crime was an inside job. I hope you do realize that. If not, then we go our separate ways--and there's really not much to discuss. But if you do, then the question is: how was it done, and just who was pulling the levers? In this case, what happened could not have taken place without the complicity of certain people in the Secret Service. Ultimately, one has to face the fact that there was a process of recruitment that had to precede the actual crime. Otherwise, the event as it unfolded could not have been manipulated--and I'm referring to everything from trip planning to the false autopsy. Some decades back, former CIA Director Allen Dulles talked about the process of recruitment, for a covert operation. He compared it to fishing. As I recall, he said it was a very dangerous game--because if you approached the wrong person, and that person said "No thank you," he (or she) could spill the beans. For purposes of this discussion, I abbreviated the process of "recruitment" and called it "pitching." Because basically, that's what it is--anyone who was approached in advance had to be pitched. I am sure that that process also involved buried money. People had to be paid off. That's just reality. And the point I was making is that if Kennedy was behaving in a particularly overtly reckless and promiscuous manner, then it would undercut his credibility--as a person, and as President. So it made him vulnerable to anyone pitching the idea that he was reckless and irresponsible in, say, the area of dealing with the Soviets. Nobody said "Let's kill the President because he is screwing around." (That's absurd.) But if there were people who truly believed that, say, by wanting a test-ban treaty, JFK was selling the country out to the Russians, then his behavior in the private sphere could be utilized to undercut his credibility. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. DSL 2/12/12; 10:40 PM PST Los Angeles, California

I agree. And this post by Burnham is one of the best single synopsis of this entire discussion. If there was not the DPD photographs of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, I probably would have had some element of lingering doubt. But not after I saw that newsreel footage back in 1972, when I came across it when researching Executive Action. I also credit Groden--with whom I shared that imagery decades ago-- for getting those signed statements from Lovelady, and his wife. I do not believe the issue turns on those statements, but they certainly cannot be ignored. The notion that all these people were standing there --supposedly with Oswald--and nobody ssaid anything, is more than just "unlikely" or "improbable." I just don't believe it. Finally, I think Robin Unger's posts 406 and 407, with the Jerry Dealey photos explaining how Lovelady was standing there (on the steps) are very helpful. For me, the only question that remains is why did Lovelady say he was wearing a red and white vertically striped shirt--and say that numerous times, when questioned? And why did he pose in exactly such a shirt when asked to come in and have is picture taken in February, 1964? I think that's an interesting puzzle but is a secondary--even a tertiary --issue. The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway? I believe he was. Another question is: was the Altgens photo (Photo #6) altered? I do not believe it was. Altgens #6 was authentic. Not a thing was done to it. And it was transmitted rather early on the AP wire (within 35 minutes, I believe). I also believe this issue provides an instance of the role of coincidence in this case. Lovelady, as he appears in the Altgens photo, does indeed look like Oswald. But in fact, it is not him. That's my opinion, and I have studied that photo, and many others, for years. Photo alteration in the JFK case is a very serious matter. I don't think Altgens 6 was altered in any way. DSL 2/12/12; 2:20 PM Los Angeles, CA

Re your statement about Robert Morrow: That is an absurd and ridiculous charge. It suggests to me that you don't understand the importance of the evidence about Kennedy's private behavior. The problem, imho, is revealed by the very language you are using to describe the situation: "salacious gossip." No, this is not about "salacious gossip." For years--I would guestimate at least a decade, but probably until the publication of A Woman Named Jackie, and then Sy Hersh's "Dark Side of Camelot"--it was a complete mystery (certainly it was, to me) as to how in the world Secret Service agents might be persuaded to go along with any plot. And let me assure you: this crime could not have occurred without the involvement of some of them. So the question was "why"--why would any of them be involved? It wasn't until the general outlines of JFK's private behavior emerged, that it became clear how they could have been pitched. That's what this is all about (as far as I'm concerned); and you cheapen the inquiry by characterizing it as "salacious gossip." It suggests to me that you really do not comprehend the importance of this data. And then, when you start throwing around charges of people being "plants," you are simply indulging in a conspiracy theory of your own making to demean someone with whom you disagree. Ms. Alford happens to be a first-rate witness. The true importance of her account is not that it permits us to discuss JFK's sexual proclivities, but that it permits us to understand why (and how) his private behavior may have led to a situation in which his security could be compromised. That's not "salacious gossip." That's understanding critical pieces of this puzzle. If you don't understand JFK's achille's heel,you will never understand how he was knocked down. This is a case where assassination with words almost certainly preceded assassination with bullets; and I'm not "blaming the victim" but pointing to the reality of the situation when I say that his private behavior was very likely a contributing ingredient. DSL 2/12/12; 6:45 AM PST Los Angeles, Ca

Gil. . this was a spoof. The guy has a dry sense of humor. . very dry, in fact. DSL

Only if you're silly enough to believe that the U.S. Secret Service would have had a desire to intentionally give their own agency a permanent black eye by deliberately permitting their "client" to be killed on their watch. Now I'll use your words, Burnham --- Give it a break. You're over-generalizing and dodging a very serious question, DVP: Whether, as a consequence of Kennedy's behavior, and/or policy decisions, it was possible to "pitch" certain SS officials (and/or agents) that Kennedy was a threat to the national security; and had to be removed from office. Now maybe you truly believe that that's beyond the pale, but the evidence indicates otherwise. (And I presume you are aware of at least one agent who shared exactly such beliefs with a witness--the Gochenaur documents--and the conversations he had with SS Agent Elmer Moore? And how Moore admitted to believe that Kennedy was selling the country out to the Communiss? etc.) What I don't understand is how you go from the very serious matter of whether individual agents could be "pitched", to the childish oversimplification in which that is reduced to someone being "silly enough to believe that the U.S.Secret Service would have had a desire to intentionally give their own agency a permanent blackeye". . .Where are you getting such oversimplified nonsense from. . . a late night phone call with your buddy, Bugliosi?? DSL 2/11//2012; 5:50 AM PST Los Angeles, California

You actually think that LBJ was so desperate to fly on AF1 (instead of AF2) on the trip back to Washington, that he was willing to practically "hijack" (your word) the aircraft to do so? LOL. What difference does it make whether LBJ flew back on Air Force 1 or Air Force 2? You CTers get goofier by the day. Are you serious? Have you listened to the Air Force One tapes? Don't you realize the underlying issue is where the body was? And how to get it off the plane? Or are you truly so naive (or willfully blind) that you believe that hours of these tapes are missing, and its unrelated to the body? DSL 2/11/12

Thank You for posting that which I have already stated. Does that prove your point ? The Warren Report made statements that were NOT supported by the testimony. There's a BIG difference between the White House yielding to Connally and putting "the final stamp of approval" on the location. That's like saying that a parent who doesn't want her kid to go to the mall, after hours of arguing with the kid and finally gives in, approves of it. Your interpretation of the facts, as usual, is ridiculous. PLEASE NOTE: The sequence of Dallas Morning News articles mentioned below was corrected after this was originally posted. Gil, I agree with your basic interpretation as to what happened, but, in some ways, it doesn't go far enough. To get the full picture, the analysis should not stop with O’Donnell. You have to include Jerry Bruno, JFK’s advance man, and the insights he affords. Bruno’s 1971 book, Advance Man –co-written with Jeff Greenfield, and published in 1971—laid out the full story of what happened. There’s a whole chapter on Dallas. Bruno is a most important witness in this affair, and it’s scandalous that he was not called as a Warren Commission witness. Worse yet, he wasn't even interviewed by the FBI--and I have always found it hard to believe that that was simply an innocent oversight. He was intimately involved with the planning of the trip, for G-d's sake, so he had detailed knowledge of why the motorcade passed by the building where Oswald was employed. When people point fingers at the Warren Commission and allege cover-up, the failure to call Bruno is critical. Innocent error? Oh pleez. . . Now let’s return to the bigger picture, and the basic geometry of this crime. You must remember: if Oswald did not shoot JFK—and if the autopsy in this case was falsified, he certainly did not—then the creation of a “crossed-paths” situation between Oswald and Kennedy was crucial to the implementation of the plot. Oswald was the “politically correct” explanation to the Kennedy assassination; he had to be “on site” for this to work. So the creation of a crossed-paths situation between the President to be killed, and the patsy to be framed, was one of several critical elements that were central to the implementation of this crime. Of course, none of this will—or perhaps can not—be conceded by DVP, because were he to even think along these lines, then the numerous fault lines of this great “coincidence” suddenly appear, and the whole thing falls apart. Let me limn in briefly some of my own past work in this area. January, 1976: My input to the HSCA After Bruno’s book was published, I managed to corner him at an appearance in Los Angeles, and he was vehement in his insistence that he would not talk about Dallas. (I’ll have more to say about that in a future writing). In January, 1977, just after the HSCA was formed, I met with Belford Lawson (at the HSCA offices in Washington) and gave Lawson a fairly complete briefing on Bruno (who he’d never heard of before!). I stressed that Bruno was of critical importance and that he must be called as an HSCA witness. Lawson then wrote a memo to Blakey, mentioning me by name, the conversation we had just had, and my statement about the importance of Bruno. Subsequently (August, 1978), Bruno was called as a witness, and gave a very detailed deposition. FYI: I have no problem with the Bruno deposition. Its as critical to anyone discussing the trip planning as the autopsy doctor’s testimony is to the post-mortem. Bruno’s testimony, and the related documents he brought to his deposition are must reading. For one thing, they make very clear that, up until about November 7 or so, Bruno had every intention of having this affair at the Women’s Building, in Fair Park. What also becomes very clear (both from the book, and the Bruno deposition) is that Connally—who was probably acting on behalf of LBJ and/or Dallas business interests—wanted the Trade Mart (and, btw, he had good reasons for wanting the Trade Mart, but that’s another story). Most important, Connally made made it crystal clear that if he didn’t get his way, he might even call off the trip. THE HOTELS AND THE LIES OF CLIFF CARTER Meanwhile, Bruno came up with certain alternate possibilities--specifically, other hotels as the possible luncheon site--and LBJ aide Clifton Carter lied to Bruno—that’s right, lied to Bruno—about the supposed non-availability of one of them—to keep the motorcade destination such that it would pass through Dealey Plaza. But I digress. . . let’s get back to Bruno. O'Donnell and the "decision" I have no doubt that, technically speaking, Kenny O’Donnell made “the decision,” but it was a decision made because of Connally’s insistence: “my way or the highway." The Trade Mart (as destination) of course assured that the motorcade would pass east-to-west through Dealey Plaza (and that meant going north on Houston, to then go west on Elm, in order to enter the Stemmons Freeway). The “no motorcade”/ “yes motorcade” switcheroo: But here’s something you’re not taking into account—and I doubt DVP is aware of it, either. While Connally wanted the Trade Mart as a speaking site, Connally did not want a motorcade, and made his position on that very clear. So the “Trade Mart decision” was—from Connally’s POV—made in the context of there being “no motorcade.” The Dallas Trade Mart was simply a speaking site; the location where Kennedy would deliver a “luncheon speech.” This is reflected in the information as published in Friday morning's Dallas News. On Friday, November 15, 1963, the Dallas Morning News ran a “no-motorcade” story under the headline “JFK Motorcade Seems Unlikely”. The Dallas News made clear the time-source of its information. Specifically, The story states that the information was based on what the “the Dallas News was told Thursday [11/14].” Here's the lead to that (written by Carl Freund): "A motorcade for President Kennedy appears unlikely when he visits the Dallas-Fort Worth area Nov. 22 despite numerous requests that he drive through the downtown areas of the two cities, The Dallas News was told Thursday." Then, the next day—i.e., about 12 hours after the “Trade Mart decision” was made (and announced in the Dallas newspapers—another announcement was made: in effect: “Surprise! There’s going to be a motorcade after all!” On Saturday, November 16, the Dallas Morning News ran a story (by the same reporter, Carl Freund, that said the opposite, under the headline “JFK Due Dallas Motorcade.” Here's the lead to that story, also written by Carl Freund: "The White Hosue flashed the green light Friday for President Kennedy to ride in a motorcade through Downtown Dallas, the Dallas News learned Friday. The President and Mrs. Kennedy are expected to drive west on Main Street at noon next Friday while en route to a luncheon in the Dallas Trade Mart on Stemmons Freeway." That story (published on Saturday morning, 11/16) constituted the first announcement of a Dallas motorcade, and was based on information that “the Dallas News learned Friday. [11/15]”. Both news stories—written by the same reporter (Carl Freund)—are published as Warren Commission Exhibits (see WCE ___ and ___ , respectively). The two stories make clear that the “yes-motorcade” decision was made on Friday, November 15, the day after the Trade Mart was chosen as the Dallas luncheon site. So basically, here’s the way the chronology unfolded, in three (count 'em, 3) distinct steps: On Nov 14,1963 (in Washington) the decision was made to accede to Gov Connally and choose the Trade Mart; Meanwhile, on that day, the Dallas Morning News was furnished information that there would be no motorcade. On November 15, 1963—it was publicly announced (based on 11/14 data) that there would be “no motorcade." That story ran under the headline: "JFK Motorcade Seems Unlikely" But then, as soon as the Trade Mart decision was locked up, and announced. . . On November 16, 1963—it was announced that (yes) there would be a motorcade. (That story ran on page one, under the headline: "JFK Due Dallas Motorcade") Note: from the way the information was handled, Connally insisted upon (and won) the "luncheon site debate" before he knew there would be a "downtown motorcade" to that site. I think that any reasonable reading of this evidence demonstrates that Connally was manipulated. He was used as the lobbyist to get the luncheon site chosen, while the information that there would be a motorcade to that site, was withheld (and not only from him, but from the public as well). I can assure you that Connally was against a motorcade—so much so that, when he learned there would (in fact) be a motorcade, he then contacted Billy Graham, and tried to get Billy Graham to contact Kennedy and call off the Dallas trip. THE ROLE OF BILL MOYERS Furthermore, at the White House, Bill Moyers was sent to Austin, Texas, on Thursday night (or early Friday morning, 11/15). Moyers met with Connally (and his wife), in their kitchen, early on Friday morning, for an hour or more, imploring Connally to lay off, and to stop objecting to a “downtown motorcade”. This is all described in the unpublished HSCA testimony of Bill Moyers (and Betty Harris); and I will be having plenty to say about all this in a future writing. HOW CONNALLY WAS USED (probably by Lyndon) The bottom line: Connally was “used” to lobby the White House (i.e., O'Donnell) and get the Trade Mart decision (as the luncheon site) made; and then, within a day, and over Connally’s objections, it was then announced that (yes) there would be a motorcade. You must read what I just wrote carefully: Connally was definitely an enabler for the Trade Mart decision, but that decision was made out of context of there being any motorcade. But then, within 12-24 hours, he realized what had just happened. In plain English, that’s when Connally had the realization that, by choosing the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, he was choosing the terminus of a motorcade route. I would guestimate that he understood this by Friday evening, November 15. DID CONNALLY SMELL A RAT? I think Connally smelled a rat from that point on, because then (later that weekend) he met with Billy Graham—i.e., after he had met with Moyers,in his kitchen—and tried to get Graham to get through to the President and call off the Dallas leg of the trip. DVP—who more and more looks like nothing more than a shill for Bugliosi—is not going to accept any of this. Because he, like his buddy Bugliosi, sees Oswald as if he were Charles Manson, and the entire event as contingent on "coincidence". But beware: he is technically correct when he says that O’Donnell “chose” or “selected” the Trade Mart, but that is only part of the story: (a) it was under duress and (b ) it was done out of context (and here, I emphasize, “Connally’s context”) that there would even be a motorcade. To the contrary, it was explicitly announced in the Dallas newspapers—prior to the Trade Mart being given a “green light”—that there would be “no motorcade.” So this whole business is one big manipulation. KENNETH O’DONNELL AND THE QUESTION OF MOTORCADES One other point: let me assure you that Kenneth O’Donnell knew there would be a motorcade. He just assumed it. Kennedy “loved” motorcades—that’s just a fact. However, given Connally’s objections to a downtown motorcade, I would assume he soft-pedaled that in any conversations he had with Connally. To recap: I do not think that Connally was part of the plot to kill Kennedy, but he was used to ram trough the Trade Mart decision, and then immediately smelled a rat, when he realized he had chosen a motorcade route, and then tried to call the trip off. Furthermore, I have information that when he was on that very brief flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, Connally was told that the long (12 mile) “looping motorcade” through downtown was canceled, and that they’d be going at normal highway speed directly to the Trade Mart. In other words, Connally was lied to on the flight to Dallas. But when he emerged from the plane, he saw otherwise—and realized he’d been lied to. Just look at his face, standing next to Nellie, under the wing of the plane. I think he knew something was up; even if he didn’t know what (and I truly do not believe he knew “what”). As we all know, his spontaneous exclamation when shot was, “Oh no no no, they are going to kill us all!” Anyway, these are the subtleties, and some of the “moving parts” of how the Dallas motorcade came to follow the route it did, and pass by the building where the ex-Marine and (in Bobby Kennedy's words, "professed Marxist") who had lived in the USSR for 2-1/2 years plus, was employed. DSL 2/11/12; 5:20 AM PST Los Angeles, California

That's it. Anyway that's what I think. That's what makes this a worthwhile topic to me. (I know its an answer to John Simkin) I think it's interesting that some chief purveyors (and creators) of this stuff to feed a certain something are, like Edgar 'the body remover' Hoover far more sexually conflicted (Walker too) yet hide behind a certain facade. One can go far on this on a number of tangents like sociology for example. It's funny (see the whats the tsbd topic) what's often missed is right in front of one. edit typo Whoever has read the C. David Heyman book, does he include a picture of Bobby Kennedy, wife and kids, going to church on Aug.5, 1962 in Gilroy, CA, which is pretty far away from Santa Monica. I've been trying to find this picture for a long time. Kathy C There may well be such a photo, but a good friend of mine was the law partner of an attorney who was in the car, with Bobby Kennedy, on the night of August 4, 1962, on Sunset Boulevard, when they were pulled over for speeding. If his account is correct, there is no question but that RFK was briefly here in Los Angeles that night. He arrived at Van Nuys airport, was driven to Marilyn's house, and then went back to that airport (and , presumably, bac to Gilroy, CA). DSL

I think its good that Groden got these pictures. Of particular importance are the signed statements. The signed statements referred to read as follows: 11/13/76 “The man standing in the entrance of the doorway, with the plaided (sic) shirt is Billy N. Lovelady. Signed: “Billy N. Lovelady” I hereby identify this to be my husband, Billy Nolan Lovelady. Signed: Mrs. Patricia r.Lovelady Robert J Groden 11-13-76 I've always believed it was Lovelady in the doorway. My question is: why did he tell the FBI--not once, but repeatedly--that he was wearing a shirt that had vertical red and white stripes--i.e., apparently the same shirt that he posed in (for the FBI, in February, 1964). the other thing that bothers me: I do not see any pocket whatsoever, or any trace of any pocket, in these pictures taken by Groden. So. . . : I do think its him in the TSBD doorway, but I remain unconvinced that he wore the same shirt for Groden, in 1976, that he was wearing on 11/22/63. Perhaps its not a major point--but those are my thoughts. DSL