David Lifton

THe Wecht Conference was mostly a bust. I was there along with my old friend Vince Palamara, and I suppose most serious students of the case have seen the videos. Although the program focused on the medical evidence, David Lifton, author of BEST EVIDENCE was not invited, yet Ken Rahn WAS invited to regurgitate his nonsense about CBLA, Oomparative Bullet Lead Analysis, AKA CABLA, AKA CABLA - CADABLA! (Voodoo SCIENCE). That says a lot about the Wecht Conference. The NAA CBLA theory was completely discredited just a few days after the Wecht conference, in the Federal Court decision in Mikos http://www.daubertontheweb.com/mikos.pdf THe Mikos decision was followed by state and federal courts throughout the land, the FBI abandoned CBLA, and even J. Robert Blakey admitted that CBLA is JUNK SCIENCE. Just to blow my own trumpet for a moment, I predicted the 2003 Mikos decision seven years earlier, in 1996 at the Fredonia Conference sponsored by Jerry Rose of the Third Decade. I sent David Lifton a copy of the tape at the time. As my great hero Charles Sanders Peirce emphasized, TRUTH IS A MATTER FOR THE LONG RUN. I may not be here to see it recognized, but I hope we are here contributing to the inquiry. I have some vivid memories of "not being invited" to that Wecht conference. The previous February (2004, as I recall), I was so excited about the work Doug Horne had done coming up with the completely original idea that the photographer of some of the supposed "autopsy photographs" was Knudsen, and that they were exposed "post-midnight" during the period of reconstruction. (Remember: this is what Godfrey McHugh had told me, back in 1967. See Best Evidence). And wouldn't that be something we wanted to share with the JFK research community? Anyway, someone close to Wecht-who has worked with him for years--was also excited about all this, and so that person approached Wecht, got a preliminary green light, that Wecht had said fine; but then, a week or so later, came the bad news: No, that wouldn't be possible, and the reason was Gary Aguilar. The extent of Aguilar's personal animus towards me can best be captured if you were to listen to him (as I did) cursing and screaming at me on the phone, circa March 2000, saying that if I came to a conference at "my hospital" (which he was sponsoring), he would have me arrested. That if I showed up, I was to take my seat, be silent, and not say a word. etc etc. Here's a direct quote, from documentation created at the time, which is quite accurate: AGUILAR (Screaming on the phone, and I'm omitting all theh "F-you's, David Lifton!" ETC ETC.: QUOTE: “Ok, if you come. . let me explain this to you! There will be no consideration! You will sit in the back of the room! You will not ask any questions! I will start the proceedings by handing out photocopies of emails that you wrote to show everybody what an asshole you are! You’ll not ask any question. If you want to speak to John Newman [who had invited me], you will speak to him out in the hall! And if you violate these conditions, I will call security and have you thrown out on your ass!” UNQUOTE This is the same Aguilar who--when he was a newbie--would call me "chief", but subsequently decided my book was all wrong, and-in general--has adopted the attitude that "this town isn't big enough for both of us." Believe me: if you know only the "reasonable" Dr. Gary Aguilar, you do not know the full story. DSL 1/27/11; 12:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

No. But I do believe he was there, and then ran away. DSL How did that happen? Timing-wise, if he was on the bus and in the cab? I've always believed it was possible--even probable--that got a brief lift in traveling from the rooming house, to the general area of the Tippit murder. OTOH: depending on the time of the Tippit murder, he may have just walked over there. In view of all the eyewitness identifications (and I'm not including Markham) I do believe he was there--and was the man identified as running away, with a pistol in his hand.

Pat: I do not have time to examine and critically analyze the full "chapter sized" postings you made, but just consider what you have written above. It is, in my opinion, easily refutable. Turn to Chapter 13 of BEST EVIDENCE, and just consider my December, 1966 interview with Dr. Paul Peters. "Dr. Peters emphazed that the head wound was at the back, that it was actually necessary to get to the back of the head to get a good view of it." Then, some pages later, and in the section under the breaker "What was visible through the wound," I dealt with all the testimony about the cerebellum, and here's what Dr. Peters had to say on that point, and I QUOTE: "Dr. Peters gave me a most vivid description. . . . trying to impress upon me the locaton of the wound he saw, Dr. Peters said: "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the the occipital lobes clearly, AND SO I KNOW IT WAS THAT FAR BACK, ON THE SKULL. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. . . [it] looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum." (For readers of this thread who may not be all that familiar with anatomic terminology, the "foramen magnum" is the hole in the base of the skull, in that part of the occiptal bone that wraps around and forms the base of the skull, through which the spinal cord enters and then connects to the brain.). It was as if something underneath them, [something] that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured or missing." There can be no doubt about what part of the head Dr. Peters looked at, or how far down the back of the head the fatal wound he saw was located. Dr. Peters statement that he saw the occipital lobes resting on the foramen magnum was not the description of a casual observor." Dr. Peters corroborated five Dallas doctors' testimony in the Warren Commisson records that erebellar tissue was visible in the sull wound. These observatons clearly indiated where the Dallas wound was located. UNQUOTE Pat: I do not understand how, with such vivid testimony spelled out in plain English, you can possibly deny the clear evidence of where the head wound was located--at the bottom of the back of the head. And then join that mis-conception, or misunderstanding (or mistake--however one wishes to characterize the manner of your analysis) --and then join that to the controversy re the Harper fragment, and state: " [it] is the height of hypocricy to turn around and claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone. For the Harper fragment to be occipital bone, there would have to have been a hole LOW on the back of JFK's head. NONE of the eyewitnesses to the shooting saw a hole there. . " (Of course, do keep in mind that Dr. Jack Harper, who actually examined the bone, said it was occipital bone--and said so (as I recollect) on November 25, 1963, per the FBI interview.) The problem with your analysis--and I now remember that I ran into this when I first emailed with you years ago--was your statement that you thought that entirely too much weight was given to the Parkland records, or some such thing. Immediately I understood then--and from your postings here I see that things have not changed all that much in the years since--that you simply do not understand or appreciate the legal and historical importance of statements made AT THE TIME (first of all); and secondly, you continually will equate, in importance, "the Parkland witnesses" with "the eyewitnesses to the shooting." There is no comparison between an "eyewitness to the shooting"--who may have had a fleeting glimpse of the President (and his wounding), a glimpse lasting a few seconds, and the observations of someone like Dr. Peters, who was in the Emergency Room, and had a chance to observe the wounds at close hand (just inches away), and with the experience of a trained physician. Yet you continually invoke the "Dealey Plaza witnesses to the shooting" as if their observations should (or do) carry the legal weight comparable to those of the doctors and nurses in the Emergency Room. That's just plain wrong. Its apples and oranges. You should not be doing that, yet you continually do so. The proper and legitimate comparison should be between observations made in the Parkland Emergency Room (or even in the Parkland Hospital parking lot, if someone got a good look at JFK's wounds there) and the reports from Bethesda. That is reasonable and legitimate. But to start by creating (and then invoking, as you do) a data base consisting of "eyewitneses-to-the-shooting" observations, and comparing them to those of the doctors actually in the emergency room, is not just of dubious value; its completely wrong, and represents a very serious analytic error. No wonder your conclusions are so completely off the mark, if they are based on "reasoning" like that. I appreciate all the pretty graphics (obviously, you are talented in that regard) but its the reasoning that counts, and I find this kind of reasoning deeply flawed. When I have more time, I'll try to critique the lengthy posting you have made (and addressed to me), but again and again, I find you traveling down this same false path, mixing apples and oranges, and drawing all kinds of unjustifiable inferences, based on this flawed methodology. That pervades your entire analysis of the medical evidence, and results in a mistaken view of what the President's body actually looked like, after the shooting; what wounds it contained; a flawed view of Dealey Plaza, and--perhaps most important of all--an inability to discern whether "the medical evidence" has been altered. And that is really the key: because if your methodology is so flawed as to not be able to perceive the evidence that the wounds on the body were altered between Parkland and Bethesda, then you have lost sight of THE major issue in this case. DSL 1/27/11; 11:50 AM PST Los Angeles, CA PS: Also remember what Dr. Charles Baxter (I think it was he) who said that the President's brain was "lying on the table." What veteran JFK researcher Wallace Milam concluded--decades ago (and I agreed with him)-was that this was Baxter's less than optimal way of describing the brain at the back of JFK's head (when JFK was lying face up) protruding through the wound, and touching the surface of the hospital cart. Again, more evidence as to the rearward location of the wound.

No. But I do believe he was there, and then ran away. (Ray--do you remember what year that was? When we had that dinner here in West L.A.??) DSL

Now now, professor, that is not nice. Lifton is internationally established as a gifted writer and a scientific historian, among the cognoscenti. Hands up all those who say we will one day say the same about the good perfessor. Ray,I'm positive he meant to write "DiEugenio has shown. . " etc. But I'll let Prof. Fetzer speak for himself. (If I'm correct, he ought to return to that post, press "Edit", and make the appropriate name-change). DSL 1/25/11; 10:10 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Sorry, Jim DiEugenio, but once again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the record. The only person I spoke with who didn't believe all the shots came from behind was Bethesda medical technician James Jenkins. He was a true standout, and I treated him in just that fashion (see Chapter 27, of Best Evidence, titled "The Recollections of James Curtis Jenkins, et al"). Here, for your edification, is an excerpt, an excerpt which follows my explanation that Jenkins had some basic knowledge about entry wounds being smaller than exits, and the conclusion he drew from the size of the wound he saw, and his failure to see any wound of entry on the front of th ehead: "So, on the night of November 22, 1963. . . James Curtis Jenkins formed the opinion that President Kennedy had been shot in the head from the front." "But then, the next day, said Jenkins, 'I found out that supposedly he was shot from the back. . . I just could't believe it, and have never been able to believe it." Now all of this is spelled out in Chapter 27 of Best Evidence, and, based on my other interviews, and from the documents, I know of no other persons at that autopsy who claimed that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Certainly, as you know, the three autopsy doctors didn't believe that, or say any such thing. Certainly, among the three med-techs (O'Connor, Jenkins, and a third one) --none of the others said that. Godfrey McHugh never thought that. Neither X-Ray tech told me that. The two FBI agents--in the report they wrote--never said any such thing. So just who are you talking about when you write: "Hardly anyone at Bethesda that night believed all the shots came from the rear"? What you're doing, of course, is attempting to deny the fact that the forgery of the wounds was effective--because you (and Aguilar, and others) would like to subscribe to a "conspiracy of liars" --i.e., a "political conspiracy"--rather than confront the fact that there was alteration of the wounds --which, in some respects, was quite effective. And a good example of that is the fact that, with the exception of James Jenkins, I know of no other person at the Bethesda autopsy who, in a 1963/64 record, stated that JFK was shot from the front. In challenging you to explain what the heck you're talking about, let me say that I'm not interested in what someone says 25-35 years later at a JFK research conference, or in an interview with Harrison Livingstone. I'm talking about what the people said in documents at the time, or what they told me when I first interviewed them (when first released from the military order not to talk, in 1979). As I said, the exception was James Jenkins. And in many ways, I thought of him as having a rather heroic status,because of (a) what he believed and (b ) the manner in which he stuck to his beliefs. Please do justify your statement; and if you can't, you ought to stop repeating such false information. DSL 1/25/11; 4:30 AM PST Los Angeles, California

Once again, we’re back to DiEugenio, and his apparent inability to comprehend what is plainly stated in BEST EVIDENCE—in this case, in Chapter 12 (“An Oral Utterance”) which specifically deals with the statement in the Sibert/O’Neill FBI report about “surgery of the head area.” DiEugenio neglects to mention that after I discovered the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery to JFK’s head (on October 23, 1966)—I actually called FBI agent James Sibert, and got him on the phone. That was on November 2, 1966. Let me repeat that: 10 days after I discovered that critical FBI statement, I telephoned FBI agent Sibert, with a tape recorder hooked up to the phone (reaching him when he was on vacation in Georgia) and prepared to ask the bottom line question—why did you write that? What was the basis for that statement? Having just had the experiences I had, with Professor Liebeler—who was now intent on drafting a memo to Chief Justice Warren about the autopsy in general, and this FBI statement in particular—I was fully aware of the importance of the FBI statement, and the potential significance of Sibert’s response. Specifically, I was fully aware that if this FBI statement was true, then that marked the end of the validity of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions, and the most fundamental conclusions of the Warren Commission, as well; since the President’s body was the basis for the autopsy conclusions, and the unstated premise was that nobody had messed with the body prior to the start of the official autopsy. So, with my recorder hooked up to the phone, and with carefully typed out notes in front of me, I was most anxious to see just what Sibert would say. (As I have said at lectures: I only tape the FBI in cases of national security. <G>). So, there I was, on November 2, 1966, with Agent Sibert on the phone. I read him the passage. Slowly, and carefully. There was little question that he understood what I saying. He replied, in part, “The report stands.” But he would not go further. He told me to write FBI Director Hoover. I did just that (see my letter to Director Hoover of November 9, 1966 on the Ferrell website). It was received at the FBI on November 14, and stamped “EXP-Proc.”—apparently, “expedite process.” Copies were sent to all the top FBI officials. On November 17, Assistant FBI Director Rosen addressed the matter, writing an internal memo about my letter. He underlined the critical passage and commented as follows: Quoting now verbatim: “Briefly, Mr. Lifton wants to know what our agents witnessed which formed the basis for their comments regarding the head surgery performed on the President, and in substance, requested an elaboration regarding the autopsy.” (see B.E., Chapter 12, for exact citations; and note the word “the”—as if, to Rosen, it was a fact—DSL). FBI Director Hoover responded (to me) with a neutral statement, but those same internal FBI documents which I have just quoted (and which I obtained under FOIA, and which—I believe—are at the Ferrell website) show what was actually going on behind the scenes: that Sibert was questioned and stated that the information in his report was “orally furnished” to him by the chief autopsy surgeon. (See Chapter 12 of Best Evidence—titled “An Oral Utterance”) Another FBI document states: “Our agents obtained their information from the head pathologist.” Another internal FBI memo states that agent Sibert replied that “Statements in his report were based on autopsy findings as stated by Dr. Hume.” On November 25, 1966, Hoover issued a statement to the New York Times, addressing the controversy surrounding the autopsy, and which attempted to explained the difference between the FBI reporting of the autopsy and the Navy autopsy conclusions. That statement said, (in part): “The F.B.I. reports record oral statements made by autopsy physicians while the examination was being conducted and before all facts were known. The autopsy report records the final findings of the examination.” (Hoover statement, NYT, 11/26/63) (Mr. DiEugenio: is that so hard to understand?. In light of the above, how can you write: "Lifton took the FBI document at face value! . . . This is shocking.") Now the above is all based upon what is published in BEST EVIDENCE, but here is an interesting postscript: Years later, in a wide ranging conversation with Sibert (1991), we reviewed all this again, he said to me: “Dave, I could swear on a stack of bibles that Dr. Humes said there had been surgery here.” Mr. DiEugenio, again I ask: what is there about this that is so difficult to understand? Do you have some congenital inability to grasp what’s stated in plain English? Why do you keep repeating false statements misrepresenting what I wrote in my book? At what point are you going to realize that you're not debating the facts, but rather spreading false information and simply damaging your own credibility? DSL 1/24/11, 9 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Jim: I never cease to be amazed at your apparent inability to read and understand what is written in plain unvarnished English--in this case, your inability to follow the chronological narrative of my book, BEST EVIDENCE. My book tells a story, the story not only of what I discovered, but how and when. It is not that difficult a story to follow, but for some reason you fail to do so, and confuse the evolution of my ideas with some kind of bad faith behavior. Let's go through this a step at a time, shall we? In the beginning--circa 1965--all I had (like everyone else) was the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission. "The Case for Three Assassins" --a 30,000 word essay on the medical and ballistic evidence (as I then saw it)--was written in July, 1966, when I was hired in the position of a temporary staff writer for Ramparts Magazine. The article was published, as a cover story, in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts, and set forth the case that the Warren Commission Report was wrong. Thanks for your kind remarks about the article--it represented a lot of hard work: harvesting the result of my own knowledge about the case, and Dave Welsh's fine writing skills. First of all, we explained that the single bullet theory didn't hold water. Second: there was the matter of the Zapruder film head snap, and all the related medical and eyewitness evidence of shots from the front. Ergo: a cross-fire. All that is laid out, crystal clear, in Chapter 4 of my book, which recounts my experiences (and that evidence) under the heading: "Ramparts Magazine and 'The Case for Three Assassins.'" Meanwhile, I returned to Los Angeles, continued thinking about the Kennedy case, and the numerous puzzling anomalies in the evidence; and October 23, 1966, I discovered the passage in the recently released FBI report that stated that it was "apparent," at autopsy, that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." For your edification, I refer you to Chapter 7 of Best Evidence, titled: "Breakthrough." This discovery, and numerous other related insights, then caused me to take a fresh look at the medical evidence, and it became rather clear that there was a serious bifurcation in the medical evidence between the way the body appeared in Dallas, and the way it appeared in Bethesda. This was unexplored territory. Here it was, the third anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination; and Lyndon Johnson was President of the U.S. And I had now arrived at the point where I believed the key to the murder was the secret alteration of the wounds on JFK's body, prior to autopsy. But the result, however chilling, was easy to visualize. Indeed, the whole thing struck me as quite similar to a classic "before and after" situation such as one often encounters in the physical sciences (i.e. physics and chemisty). Many of my new insights are discussed at length in Chapter 8 of my book, titled "Emergency of a New Hypothesis." Now, let's go to the next step: At the time, I was attending UCLA law professor Liebeler's class on the Warren Commission, and it was on Monday, October 24, 1966, that we had an approximately 4-6 hour meeting, in which I revealed to him my discovery, and presented my hypothesis that the reason for the Dallas/Bethesda bifurcation in the Commission's medical records was that the President's body (i.e., his wounds) had been altered. And that the President's body, at autopsy, was tantamount to a medical forgery. Got that? OK. . let's proceed. Liebeler grasped the significance of what I had found. Indeed, he was stunned. For here was a simple thesis that explained so many of the puzzling contradictions in the record. This full day meeting --at which I expounded my views--took place on October 24, 1966, is the subject of Chapter 9 of my book, titled "October 24, 1966: A Confrontation with Liebeler." OK. . got that? Now let's proceed. Meanwhile, my previously written article--drafted in July (1966)--was being edited, and re-edited, and was on its way to galleys, for publication at some point in the future in Ramparts Magazine (as it turned out, in the January, 1967 issue, as a cover story). Now let's pause here, because you're going to have to follow two lines of thinking--and at the same time. I believed one thing in July, 1966, and those ideas were on their way to publication in Ramparts. Meanwhile, my ideas were undergoing a rapid change. Got that? Good. Now let's proceed. Also: during this very same period, Liebeler then went on to write a detailed 12-13 page memorandum on the subject of the medical evidence--dated November 8, 1966--featuring my discovery, and basically alerting the Warren Commission members, and anyone on the staff who could read English, that there was clear evidence, in the files of the Warren Commission, that the medical evidence had been falsified. Also, he was on the phone quite a bit with someone who had been close to Robert Kennedy, Ed Guthman. But let's get back to the memo. Liebeler's memo was addressed to Chief Justice Warren and all former members of the Commssion (and most of the staff). The memo raised the issue of pre-autopsy surgery, and sought a limited reopening of the Warren Commission investigation in the area of the medical evidence. All this is covered in Chapter 10 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled: "The Liebeler Memorandum" The Liebeler memorandum was dated November 8, 1966, and was sent out on November 16, 1966. I played a major role in the research that went into that memo, and attended the multi-hour drafting sessions.) Now, Jim, let's see if you can "do the math"--which, in this case, means: Can Jim DiEugenio sufficiently understand English, to arrange things linearly on a timeline, and make the entries necessary to grasp the evolution of DSL's ideas on a normal calendar, an evolution that occurred between July, 1966 an January, 1967? Let's take this a step at a time, shall we? In July, 1966, I'm hired by Ramparts, relocate to San Francisco (temporarily) and, with Dave Welsh as co-writer, we write a 30,000 word article on the medical evidence. That article covers all the evidence rebutting the single bullet theory, and it also presents all the evidence (as of that date) for a shot to the head from the front. Its called "The Case for Three Assassins". That article is published in January, 1967. (Moreover, that article, and my employment at Ramparts, is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of my book, under the heading: "Ramparts Magazine and the Case for Three Assassins.") In late October, 1966, I discover the first evidence for pre-autopsy alteration of President Kennedy's body, immediately notify Professor Liebeler of my discovery, am involved in interviewing the Dallas doctors, and FBI agent Sibert, and Humes--all of whom I manage to get on the phone--and, in addition, I work with Professor Liebeler on his memorandum, which goes out to Chief Justice Warren, the Justice Department, the Kennedy family (RFK), etc.--and that distribution occurs on November 16, 1966. Then, in January, 1967, my Ramparts article is published. Again, let's recap, because I don't want you to miss a thing, here, Jim: In July, 1966, I believed one thing; then I went through a major paradigm shift, realized the body was altered, and went on to do major additional research which led to the research and writing of Best Evidence, which was accepted by a published in the late fall of 1978, and published in January, 1981. Naturally, my ideas changed, between July, 1966, and their final presentation in January, 1981 when my fully developed thesis was published in BEST EVIDENCE. Is that too difficult to grasp? Yet you write: "Which brings me to my other point. Lifton was not always in the "all shots came from the front" camp. This was a revised position of his for his book." ". . .revised. . . for his book. . . "? Now what the heck is that supposed to mean? My book was written over the course of some 14 years and was published in January, 1981. This paradigm shift I have described occurred back in the fall of 1966. Do you understand that? Or, as seems to be the case, are we back to Roger Feinman, your disbarred lawyer friend, and his garbaage about my having made up a theory to get a book contract? (So is that what this is all about?) Frankly, Jim, your critique is preposterous. But let's move beyond all this, to a wider issue. . . : your overheated assertions that the Warren Commission was a "kangaroo court". This is another idea which is not supported by the records. There was plenty wrong with the Warren Commission--I can cite you chapter and verse--but your oversimplified critique gets us nowhere, and is as silly as it is unsophisticated. Knowing the way you operate, you're probably getting that, too, from your buddy, Feinman. Re the Commission: All you have to do is study the working papers of the Warren Commission--and I spent many hours at the Archives doing that in 1970-1972--to see how, from the outset, the staff's work was compartmentalized, and how thoroughly each individual staff member basically believed the "Oswald story". Or: you can study the 250 page transcript from July, 1964, when the top staff members meet with consulting psychologists, and attempt to understand Oswald's motive. In retrospect, their attempt at analysis may appear absurd, but I don't think any of this was play acting. Perhaps, if you had been on the Commission staff, you would have instantly grasped the myriad problems. But from what I can see, most of them, unfortunately, fell for the "evidence" of Oswald's guilt. And (it seems clear to me, anyway) an important factor propelling them down that path was the false autopsy. The President was struck twice from behind--that's what the autopsy told them, and nobody seemed to challenge that. (I'd like to think I would have, had I been on that staff, but I wasn't). In any event, I don't suppose you will see it that way, because if you can't even grasp the paradigm shift I personally went through between July, 1966 and December, 1966, then I don't suppose it can be expected that you would understand the far ore complex dynamics of the Warren Commission investigation. DSL 1/24/11; 3:20 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Ray, I have not done anything with my Doyle Williams interview--yet. I a number of others as well (e.g., Vince Drain). I believe I had them transcribed. Will have to check. DSL

oops. Duplicate post.

Don't rule out the possibility that this was some kind of insider "sympathy buy," arranged to avoid B-J having egg on its face, and being involved in a public relations disaster. Not proof, but something to keep in mind. DSL

To Daniel Gallup: You asked: Jim or anyone else, has Henchcliffe ever been interviewed? To my knowledge she has never acknowledged a wound in the back, but I could be wrong. It would be valuable corroboration of either Lifton or Bowron's comments to Livingston. Respectfully, Daniel Yes; Henchliffe was interviewed, in person, and in detail, by JFK researcher Wallace Milam. The date was June 25,1993, at the time the Crenshaw case was in some kind of "pre-trial" (or "pre-settlement" phase). Wallace (on behalf of Crenshaw's attorney) interviewed Henchliffe, in person, for some two hours, and made careful notes. In May 1996, he reviewed them with me, line by line. (FYI: Henchliffe did not care for Kennedy, politically). Anyway, here is a verbatim excerpt of my word-for-word notes, as Wallace read me his notes on the phone: QUOTING: When she got [i.e. was shown] the autopsy photos: "Nothing looked like this" She didn't see any hole in the back. (meaning, "the back surface of the body") "We didn't look all the way down to his waist." "I didn't see one" "I'm not saying there was not one there." "Why are you people still pursuing this?" CHANGING THE SUBJECT: There's another medical person--a nurse--who told Wallace that the following statement was made, at Parkland, by Doris Nelson (on Friday, 11/22): "I wish these people would quit putting these bullets on stretchers." I will search my computer disk for the best records I have on this, but I know the quote comes from Nelson. (DSL)

To Cliff Varnell: Here's an important point that I'd like to address, because it goes to the heart of the matter. In our recent interchange, appears the following: DSL : "No, I'm not turning witnesses into perps. I'm seeking a logical explanation of the events." Your response: "Doesn't make sense to me to plan on falsifying wounds when the whole plot was designed to look like a conspiracy." Let's focus on that last statement: that the plot "was designed to look like a conspiracy," because there's a major difference between the following two types of "design": (A) a plot "designed to look like a conspiracy" because "Oswald, the shooter" had recently gone to Mexico City and visited both the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate. (And, in that sense, that was the "design purpose" of the Mexico City trip; to create just such an appearance--i.e., of "foreign involvement"); (B ) A plot "designed to look like a conspiracy" because Kennedy was shot from multiple directions by multiple assassins and NO provision was made to hide that fact, i.e., to "shape in advance" the "solution" to Dealey Plaza. The former presents an easily-managed and controlled situation because it turns on what Oswald did (or was directed to do); and how that is interpreted afterwards, i.e., after the actual Kennedy murder. Its still "one man" (i.e., the one shooter) who has mysterious "ties to a foreign power". Now that's something I've studied carefully and subscribed to for years. But that (i.e., Case A) is entirely different from a situation ("B" ) in which that same Oswald, "sheep dipped" in that same fashion, then turns up in Dealey Plaza and (supposedly) shoots the President as one of a number of assassins, THE REST OF WHOM (in this scenario ["B" ]) are not apprehended. In (A), the situation is (to coin a term) "controlled" and well-defined. Numerous options are available. In (B ), the situation is completely out of control, and "in your face," with un-apprehended assassins on the loose (!). I certainly do not subscribe to (B ), because--as I described in a somewhat lengthy post earlier this evening--it leads to a completely out of control political situation, and --imho--a first class public relations disaster for the new President. For many years, I have believed that "A" was the intention of the plotters. "A" still leaves the potential for plenty of guilt and finger-pointing (e.g., at Castro) but it is entirely controllable. "B"--as I have previously argued--leads to an out-of-control "in your face" public relations disaster,in which the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. In the case of "A", Oswald can still be a "lone assassin," although there is "mystery" as to what went on in Mexico City. In the case of "B", there are unapprended assassins, and the FBI Lab even has the bullets from their guns (!). I just don't see any comparison. If its the intention to create a stable political transition so that Johnson can ascend to the Oval Office without a huge cloud over his head, then "A" is the way to go. And that's the sort of thing that, I believe, happened in this case. And incidentally, you will find that "A" --in a perverse sort of way--is exactly what someone like Max Holland believes: that Oswald (who he actually believes shot at Kennedy, and was the "sole assassin")--was motivated out of a fierce devotion to Castro, and then the Warren Commission (for "political" reasons) concealed Oswald's true political profile. You, too, would probably agree that the WC hid --or seriously soft-pedaled, or concealed--Oswald's "political"connections, but (like myself, and UNLIKE someone like Max Holland) would probably agree that Oswald was a pre-selected patsy. So there are a number of ways to assemble the pieces of this "Rubic's Cube," depending on one's political proclivities, and how one interprets the evidence; and, most important of all (IMHO) whether one is willing to challenge the validity of the evidence. Finally (and you can call this my own "pet peeve"): there are those who--for largely personal reasons--cannot abide by the fact that by the time they came to this case--often, after the 12/91 release of Stone's "JFK"--BEST EVIDENCE had been in print for over 10 years and (imho) they simply cannot deal with the fact that body alteration is the fundamental explanation for the bifurcated Dallas/Bethesda record. As I've said on many occasions,"fraud in the evidence"--and body alteration to understand the bifurcated Dallas/Bethesda record--is the only way to understand the actuality of what happened in Dallas. It offers the best and most reasonable explanation as to why the legal and historical record (or, in computer lingo, the "data base") is so bifurcated, and appears the way it does, at this point in time. Remember: The assassination happened only one way once-- not once for the benefit of the Warren Commission, and then in some other manner for the benefit of conspiracy theorists. Ultimately--and in a manner that is roughly analogous to the "uniqueness theorem" in mathematics (and specifically, differential equations)--there is only one correct 'solution' to this rather complex crime. DSL 1/23/11 4:30 AM PST Los Angele, CA

Cliff, I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s). You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated. I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now put forth is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”, here is my commentary: a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point. That’s the initial public perception. . . BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup): b ) There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and, in addition, the FBI would actually have ammunition recovered from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence [at autopsy] of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy. Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”? Assassins who, somehow, “escaped”. Right there in downtown Dallas. To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”? I cannot imagine a situation like that: a Marxist assassin in Dallas, plus “others” who somehow escaped. And this would be the U.S. Government’s position, both to its own people, and to the world at large? If the Warren Report was a “hard sell”—and in many ways it was—let me offer my opinion: that version of Dallas, despite its numerous implausibilities, would be easy, compared with what would be required for the American public to accept, in the scenario you propose. Specifically: that President Kennedy came to Dallas to settle a “political problem” (or so said Johnson, who pushed hard for him to make the trip); then he rode in an open motorcade; then he was assassinated by a pro-Castro Marxist, in “right wing Dallas,”—a man who had recently visited the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy—and then, in addition, it became front page news that, based on the official examination of the body, there were unknown accomplices who somehow had escaped the dragnet of the Dallas Police Department. I find that thoroughly implausible. What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster as well (and particularly for Vice President Johnson). The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place. So that is my initial reaction to your proposed scenario. Of course, what I’ve just laid out is speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but its also highly implausible and, imho, unsupportable, because, ultimately, we must face certain chronological facts that are far from easy to dismiss, and which point to a plot in which the lone assassin scenario, ALONG WITH medical and ballistic falsification, was always part of the original plan. Just consider these factors (no one of them is conclusive, all by itself, but the pattern seems clear): (a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes; and, at autopsy, a suspiciously shallow wound was found on the back of the body. Then, at autopsy, events unfolded in such a manner as to link that specific missile to the shallow back (or shoulder) wound. (All this is spelled out in BEST EVIDENCE, including the very clear paper trail that originally existed linking that bullet to that wound). (b ) A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally O-R, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir, “In the Shadow Of Dallas”)--a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes). Exactly what became of that missile is another story—but the point is, bullets were materializing to account for “the wounds” at an awfully early hour, i.e., within 30 minutes of the shooting! And in two cases! (c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. Had he entered the room, he would have been the “Sibert and O’Neill” of ER-1—and a paper trail might have been generated with exact times, what the doctors were saying, etc. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, in which he goes through the incident in considerable detail, and particularly, the behavior of Roy Kellerman, who, when Williams was still down on the floor, came over, leaned over him, and said: “Perhaps you’d better leave.” Imagine that—a Secret Service agent telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). (d ) This is the same Roy Kellerman, who, at the time of the shooting, looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas. Everything mentioned above was happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (about 2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of it could be explained by a “Castro did it!” model. (e) I have also pointed out Kellerman’s weird behavior at Bethesda, in telling Sibert and O’Neill that Kennedy reached for a wound at the back of his shoulder, a wound which there is good reason to believe did NOT exist in Dallas; and, in any event, a motion that is clearly NOT on the Zapruder film. Best case scenario (as you have speculated): Kellerman was confused. Worst case scenario: Kellerman was deliberately creating a false record of Kennedy’s last seconds in life, to confirm with an altered wound pattern on JFK’s body. (Yes, that’s pretty dark, but those are the alternatives). And then, finally, we come to this. . . (f) The matter of the “empty coffin.” This constistutes critical evidence of the intercept, and is obviously related to alteration of the body. (See chapter 25 and 28 of BEST EVIDENCE). At this juncture, I can assure you that no less than six witnesses –at least—state that JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket (at least 20 minutes before); which means that JFK’s body was not in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST. Now one can debate the question of how that happened—and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it)—but it did happen. Further, the report of Sgt. Roger Boyajian, of USMC Security Detail (See ARRB Document MD-236 or Doug Horne’s book) makes clear that the body was delivered to the morgue at 6:35 PM. Remember: the naval ambulance with Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy (and the flag draped Dallas casket) pulled up at Bethesda at 6:55 PM. My point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that certain “decisions” were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology. In short, what I will call your “political theory” of the cover-up does not match the known facts about the journey of the body. In fact, your chronology is seriously out of sync with that. There are other very significant matters that can be added to this list, and you will be reading about them in the future. So again, I come back to my initial point: I believe your basic “political model” to be incorrect. IMHO, the problem is this: it simply doesn’t have enough categories for the various facts at hand. I believe that a more elaborate ‘sorting scheme’ is necessary to be able to properly categorize, and analyze, the various issues at hand. But nonetheless, there is considerable overlap where we do agree; and so, in that spirit, let’s return to your hypothesis. Here’s the way matters stack up, IMHO: Your hypothesis states that Oswald was a pre-selected patsy (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that Oswald was manipulated, in advance, so as to appear to be affiliated with a foreign power. (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that it was planned, in advance, to eliminate the patsy, and to do so promptly. (Agreed). Further, that not doing so was a foul-up of considerable importance. (Agreed). But where you and I disagree—and it is profound disagreement—is that, when it comes to “the details,” you have postulated a scenario that does NOT require a medical and ballistic cover-up, whereas I believe the opposite: that the scenario involved certain detailed planning on this score, and that such planning was at the very heart of the Kennedy assassination. Kennedy’s body was targeted in advance, so as to be able to tell a false story of the shooting, one that would comport with the unfolding “Dallas Police investigation.” Remember: we’re dealing here with the wound pattern on the body—in effect, the “diagram of the shooting”. That’s why I wrote Chapter 14—“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”—which lays out the case (such as I understood it at the time) for a “designer shooting.” By contrast, you have essentially taken the position: “No designer shooting was necessary; for the design, itself, was to deliberately create the appearance of conspiracy, a Castro conspiracy, which would THEN be the official solution to the crime.” THE CHIEF PROBLEM WITH YOUR PROPOSED SCENARIO I thoroughly disagree with that position. First of all, I think it would have been politically unstable (i.e., for LBJ et al). If events unfolded along the lines of your scenario, the nation would have been in an uproar. People would have been outraged, and demanded justice, and “justice” –in that case—would have meant cries for an invasion of Cuba. But none of that happened. In fact (and to the contrary) Johnson basically tamped down the entire situation. Further, he disavowed any significant plan to remove Castro covertly (I’m assuming you are aware of the documentation), but then secretly switched the policy on Vietnam—from de-escalation and withdrawal to an Americanization of the war. (That’s been debated, but that’s my take on the situation—and I’ve believed that ever since I was deeply involved with John Newman, back in the late 1980s, when he was doing his thesis, which then culminated with his 1991 book: JFK and Vietnam. And I think the ARRB document releases proves the point.) But I digress, so again, let’s return to your scenario. In the midst of such an uproar and public relations disaster (which, I believe, would have followed if events had unfolded along the lines you speculate were planned), I do not believe LBJ could possibly have been nominated in August, 1964, at the Atlantic City convention. So the assassination would have removed Kennedy from office, but left the Johnson presidency in a shambles. The transition would have been a mess. (And furthermore, in such a scenario, Bobby Kennedy might have easily picked up the fallen banner, challenged Johnson, and even won the nomination. Again, we're speculating, but I think that's a distinct possibility if "the transition" was not handled properly; and I think the last thing plotters would want would be RFK as president. No way.) But, most important, and in the final analysis, I don’t think what you’re suggesting is supported by the evidence in this case. As noted: I have stressed the “early planting” of bullet 399 (which I discuss, in detail, in Best Evidence). But you might wish to chew on the matter of the empty coffin when you have some spare time. Remember: AF-1 took off at 2:47 PM, CST. Based on the arrival data at Bethesda, the body was not in the coffin when the plane took off. That didn’t happen by magic. And that’s got to be a central fact pertaining to any theory of strategic deception. So what we’re dealing with here must have commenced well before the “several hours later” that you apparently postulate and envision as the start of your “after-the-fact” scenario. A most interesting subject, is it not? My advice: focus on chronology, and remember what John Adams said: Facts are stubborn things. Stay tuned. DSL Revised. 1/23/11; 1:40 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Addressing the recent post(s) of Cliff Varnell: Cliff, I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s). You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated. I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now say is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”: a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point. BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup): There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and the FBI actually would have recovered ammunition from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy. Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”? To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”? I cannot imagine a situation like that: a Marxist in Dallas, and “the others” just “got away”? But this would be the U.S. Government’s position, both to its own people, and to the world at large—correct? If one believes the Warren Report was a “hard sell,” let me just say: that would be nothing, as compared with what would be required for the American public (much less the world) to believe (much less accept). Specifically: that President Kennedy came to Dallas to settle a “political problem” (or so said Johnson, who pushed hard for him to make the trip); then he rode in an open motorcade; then he was assassinated by a pro-Castro Marxist, in Dallas, who had recently visited the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy, AND—in addition—it was front page news in the nation’s media that, based on the examination of the body, there were unknown accomplices. What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster (for Johnson). The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place. So that is my first initial reaction. Of course, that’s all speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but then we must face certain chronological facts that are far less easy to dismiss: (a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes. ( A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally OR, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir)-a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes). (c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, and he goes through this in considerable detail. Kellerman, on top of him, says, “Perhaps you’d better leave.” Now imagine that—the chief of Kennedy’s SS detail (in Dallas, anyway) telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). At about 1:30 PM (!). (d ) Kellerman, who looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas All this is happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of this can be explained by a “Castro did it!” model. And then, finally, we come to this. . . (e) There’s the matter of the “empty coffin,” critical evidence of the intercept, and obviously related to alteration of the body. No less than six witnesses state that the body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket; which means the body wasn’t in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST. Now you can take your choice as to how that happened, and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it). The point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that decisions were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology, i.e., with your “political theory” of the cover-up. There are other very significant matters that can be added to this list, and you will be reading about them in the future. Again, I come back to my initial point: I believe your basic model to be incorrect. It simply doesn’t have enough categories for the various facts at hand. I believe that a more elaborate ‘sorting scheme’ is necessary to be able to properly categorize, and analyze, the various issues at hand. Now back to your hypothesis. Here’s the way matters stack up, IMHO: Your hypothesis states that Oswald was a pre-selected patsy (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that Oswald was manipulated, in advance, so as to appear to be affiliated with a foreign power. (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that it was planned, in advance, to eliminate the patsy, and to do so promptly. (Agreed). But where you and I disagree—and it is profound disagreement—is that, when it comes to “the details,” you have postulated a scenario that does NOT require a medical and ballistic cover-up, whereas I believe such an objective (and some detailed planning) was at the very heart of the Kennedy assassination. That’s why I wrote Chapter 14—“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”—which lays out the case (such as I understood it at the time) for a “designer shooting.” By contrast, you have essentially taken the position: “No designer shooting was necessary; for the design, itself, was to create the appearance of conspiracy, a Castro conspiracy, which would then be the official solution to the crime.” I thoroughly disagree with that position. First of all, I think it would have been politically unstable (i.e., for LBJ et al). If events unfolded along the lines of your scenario, the nation would have been in an uproar. People would have been outraged, and demanded justice, and “justice” –in that case—would have meant cries for an invasion of Cuba. But none of that happened. In fact (and to the contrary) Johnson basically tamped down the entire situation. Further, he disavowed any plan to remove Castro, but then secretly switched the policy on Vietnam—from de-escalation and withdrawal to an Americanization of the war. Furthermore, in the midst of such an uproar and publicly relations disaster (which, I believe, would have followed if events had unfolded along the lines you speculate were planned), I do not believe LBJ could possibly have been nominated in August, 1964, at the Atlantic City convention. But, most important, I don’t think what you’re suggesting is supported by the evidence in this case. As noted: I have stressed the “early planting” of bullet 399 (which I discuss, in detail, in Best Evidence). But you might wish to chew on the matter of the empty coffin when you have some spare time. Remember: AF-1 took off at 2:47 PM, CST. The body was not in the coffin. And that’s got to be a central fact pertaining to any strategic deception. And so what we’re dealing with here must have commenced well before the “several hours after” that you apparently envision as the start of your “after-the-fact” scenario. Stay tuned. DSL 1/22/11; 8:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges. Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK. The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK. The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged. The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue. CLIFF, IMHO: You have erected an entirely artificial distinction between what's after-the-fact and what's "before the fact". I understand the necessity to categorize when analyzing a complex factual situation, but I respectfully submit that your categories are not just wrong, but thoroughly incorrect. Because of that, your analysis fails to perceive patterns, and detect data, that is "before the fact". I can't do justice to this in an email. I'd be curious as to your view as to how "the perps" who designed this to look like a Castro conspiracy, expected the medical and ballistics evidence to support that thesis, without considerable preparation and some advance planning in that area. Surely, you don't believe they intended to simply exclaim "Castro did it!" and then expect numerous government agencies and people to fall in line? (Or do you in fact believe something along those lines?). Perhaps you can inform us. DSL

To Cliff Varnell: Let me assure you that I have no desire to turn witnesses into perps. But its just a plain fact that, in the Kennedy case, and in dealing with some of the key agents, you're dealing with a non-reactive Secret Service. The notion that those who planned Kennedy's murder planned in advance to control the body is eminently supportable. Its the opposite position--that this is all "after the fact"--that is both illogical and unsupportable. By the way: the bullet planted on the stretcher was an act that occurred within 30 minutes of JFK's arrival at Parkland Hospital: that does not sound to me like a "make-it-up-as-we-go-along contingency". At Parkland Hospital, before Kennedy's death was announced? And what about the fact that a bullet also "fell to the floor" or some such thing, in connection with the JC medical treatment (per Nurse Wester). Is that also part of the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along-contingency." Of course, we haven't here addressed such larger issues as: Do you really believe that Lee Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, ended up in the Texas School Book Depository by accident? (And that is just one critical thread to the story; Or is that to be considered coincidence?) And if your response is that someone dreamed up the idea of having his person "on site," then how, may I ask, was he supposed to be implicated, if there was not preparations made, in advance, to do so? Do you think the plan was to yell "Hey, Castro did it!" and that then the entire Government would just fall into line, and falsify the evidence, out of convenience? And in a supposed "rush to falsify" to avoid international complications? (Some plot!) No, I'm not turning witnesses into perps. I'm seeking a logical explanation of the events. DSL 1/22/11; 1:25 PM

Jim, as if often the case, you again display your ignorance of the record. Bowron testified she saw two wounds—one at the back of the head, and the other at the front of the throat.. Here is the key quote from her deposition: Specter: Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body? Bowron: No, sir. Citation: 3/24/64; Vol 6 p 136 End of story. FYI: I have no idea how Harry Livingstone got Borwon to say something else, in the 1990s, but I do know how Livingstone behaves, in general, because I have a clear record of his screwball questioning of Paul O’Connor, who called me up personally to complain about his behavior, and his attempts to get O’Connor to deny the basic element of his own experience that evening: that Kennedy’s body arrived in a body bag. Then an associate of his, dismayed at his behavior, sent me the transcripts. So, I’m sorry DiEugenio—its back to basics. You’re a history teacher—right? Why don’t you start with the testimony of Bowron taken by Specter in March, 1964, and not information that Harry claims to have elicited 30 years later. As to Glenn Bennett, I addressed this question in BEST EVIDENCE: Glenn Bennett was not looking at Kennedy at the time—that is clear from Willis Slide 5. More important, even Specter was suspicious, and if you follow the correspondence trail, Bennett’s handwritten statements were not provided to the Warren Commission until May, 1964. But neither Bennett nor Bowron are really the issue. Because my post does not address the entry wounds, but rather the large head wound and the throat wound, for which there is plentiful evidence --in each of those two cases--on which to base a conclusion on the basic issue: whether there was body alteration. That is the key issue. DSL 1/22/10, 1:10 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Corroborating the point you're making above (addressing Dan Gallup): When I visited Nurse Bell in Dallas in December, 1982—when I had just received the autopsy photographs—I showed them to her and she emphasized that they did NOT show the head wound that she had seen. Further, she emphasized how far back on President Kennedy’s head that wound was located. Rather than repeat from memory what she told me, I'll just quote the Afterword to the Carrol and Graf edition of BEST EVIDENCE, which was prepared by using the tape recording of that in-person interview: NOW QUOTING Audrey Bell was emphatic on the same point The wound she saw was so localized at the rear that, from her position on the right hand side, with Kennedy lying face up, she couldn't see ANY damage. She described walking into the [emergency] room, seeing Kennedy face up on the car, and expressing puzzlement to Dr. Perry: "Where was the wound?" [was what she communicated to Perry]. Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound." UNQUOTE When I interviewed Audrey Bell in 1989, on camera, with a professional camera crew, we went through the same incident again. I fail to understand how Pat Speer (or anyone else) can maintain that there was a hole in the top of Kennedy's head, one-half foot across (per the Boswell diagram) that was unseen at Parkland Hospital. As far as I'm concerned, that's not just a "weak" hypothesis—its a completely absurd and untenable argument. Yet that's the kind of argument or “explanation” that's at the basis of the viewpoint of Pat Speer (and/or Aguilar and/or DiEugenio, who basically parrots whatever Aguilar says). All these folks—in rejecting body alteration—subscribe to the notion that the Dallas doctors and nurses simple observed the posterior portion of a much larger wound. This is their way of denying the reality of body alteration. And that's unfortunate, because "body alteration"—more accurately state, “wound alteration”—is the path to the broader concept of "fraud in the evidence," and "fraud in the evidence" provides the closest thing to a straight-line path to the political heart of the matter: that the “lone assassin theory” is a false (and contrived) construct built on fraudulent evidence. But that explanation, in turn, is the reason why the transition from Kennedy to Johnson was not the "ordinary transition" that might occur if a "lone nut" had actually shot the President, but a transition that was sold to the American people based on a false story about Kennedy's murder. In other words, those who fail to address the issue of "fraud in the evidence" (and this is a position that is shared by both myself and Doug Horne) trivialize the debate by reducing it to a quibble about bullet trajectories, and the firing position of this or that shooter, rather than addressing the broader political picture and implications that follow from falsified evidence—the "evidence" in this case being the most important evidence of all: the body the murdered President. If you caught someone adding zeros to a check in the middle of an escrow concerning the purchase of a house—behavior that clearly indicated you were dealing with a fraudster—would you then say, "Oh, just correct the amount, and sign your initials here," and I'll still buy the house; or, would you call off the transaction? I am sometimes amazed when I watch debates on this topic, and observe various people trying to twist and turn and wiggle this way and that, attempting to deny the basic thesis that JFK’s wounds were altered, prior to autopsy. Let me return, for a moment, to the Audry Bell interview, as quote in my 1983 Afterword. AUDREY BELL – AND THE THROAT WOUND After we thoroughly discussed the head wounding, we turned to the wound at the front of the throat—which, in the Bethesda autopsy, was initially called a "tracheotomy incision." Here's what Audrey Bell said—and remember, this is December 1982—29 years ago, and again, I quote from my Foreword: QUOTE: On the subject of the tracheotomy incision shown in the photographs, Ms. Bell was equally firm. "Looks like somebody has enlarged it," she said. "You don't make trachs that big. Not when you've got as much experience as Perry has. If you've got a brand-new intern, who has never done one before, you may get one botched up and get it too big. But not when you've got a man of Perry's experience doing one. UNQUOTE And remember what Dr. Perry told me when I first interviewed him, on the phone, on October 27, 1966. Presenting myself as a student in Wesley Liebeler's UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Report (which was then receiving national publicity, since Epstein and Lane’s books had just been published), I said I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy incision, because that was an example of a "fact" that had not been ascertained by the Warren Commission, and the good professor wanted us to gain some experience in fact-finding. Perry was very nice to me. How long, I asked him, was the incision: "two to three centimeters" he replied, quite assuredly. Instead of recollecting any more from memory, let me turn to my own book, and quote what happened during this conversation, because it was written about 1979: QUOTING FROM CHAPTER 10 of BEST EVIDENCE: "So do you recall, perhaps, how large the incision was?" Dr. Perry didn't hesitate a moment. "Two to three centimeters," he replied. As I talked to Dr. Perry, I had opened volume 3 of the 26 volumes, containing his Warren Commission testimony. As Perry replied, I scrawled "2-3 cm" in the margin." UNQUOTE I of course was very aware that the Bethesda autopsy described it as "6.5 cm" and also stated that it had "widely gaping irregular edges; further, that when he was under oath, before the Warren Commission, Humes had testified its length was "7 - 8 cm". At that point, I played what I can will call here a "Columbo" game (after the TV show Columbo, which was quite popular at the time). Adopting the most naïve and innocent tone I could manage, under the circumstances, I asked Dr. Perry if it might have been larger, going up in one-half centimeter increments, in order to see what his reaction would be. Again, just read what I wrote in chapter 10 of Best Evidence. Perry grew increasingly uncomfortable when I even reached 4 centimeters, telling me it didn't have to be that large and noting that it was "a basic tenet of surgery" not to make an incision longer than it had to be. Within a few days, I made the decision to call ALL the Dallas doctors that I could, and ran out and purchased a recorder—a reel-to-reel machine and the first tape recorder I ever owned—and hooked it up to my phone. By that point, I was keenly aware (from attending Liebeler’s class) that I wanted to create evidence, a historical record. You can read about the rest of my subsequent interviews in Chapter 11 of BEST EVIDENCE ("The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda"). The very next doctor I called, Dr. James Carrico, answered the same question as to length: "between two and three centimeters." When I told Carrico that the autopsy testimony was that the incision was "7 - 8 cm." he responded, "Jimminy Christmas. . . it would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance" (Ch. 10, BEST EVIDENCE). But my favorite quote of all comes from Dr. Pierre Finck, who testified at the 1969 Shaw trial. Surely everyone knows (by now) that—as world class forensic pathologist Dr. Milton Halperin explained in his book (“Where Death Delights”)—the original bullet wound SHOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE along the edges of the trach incision. Yet the autopsy report makes no mention of this: Questioned about this, Dr. Finck responded by saying he had examined the throat incision carefully, he could see no trace of it, and then, asked to explain its absence, replied: "I don't know why it is not there." (Dr. Humes, as I wrote, was "almost apologetic" about the situation. Questioned by McCloy on the same point—whether he could see any evidence of the Dallas wound—Humes replied: "Unfortunately, not that we could ascertain, sir." (And, in the interest of brevity, I am skipping over the fact that the autopsy photographs show such what appears to be “the wound”—which of course is absurd, unless the pictures reflect the body after it was hoked up to show something, at the time of photography, that was not present at the time Dr. Finck examined the wound. But that is another matter). Of course, this is the same wound that O'Connor described to me repeatedly as an awful ugly gash—again, not reflected in the autopsy report. And, with the brain absent—another issue—O’Connor said, in all innocence (and this was at this home in Florida, in October, 1980), that he was puzzled: because “you wouldn’t do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain.” The point I'm making here—in diverting the focus from the head wound, to the throat wound—is that, when considering the issue of body alteration (in its totality) there's not only evidence of head wound alteration, but there's ALSO evidence of throat wound alteration. So it should not be too difficult for anyone thinking conceptually, when addressing this situation, to grasp the larger idea that what we're dealing with, here, is the alteration of the wounds --i.e., the entire wound pattern—on Kennedy's body to fabricate a false story of his death. Yet people like Aguilar and Cranor—who are then quoted by DiEugenio, as if they have some God-like status—try to blur the difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations. Yet here is Aguilar, attempting to have it both ways, in email correspondence with a supporter of my work (in 1998): QUOTE: Please don't misconstrue. I WILL NOT, nor have I EVER, claimed I can prove there was NOT body alteration. UNQUOTE. This is the same Aguilar who, in March, 2001, was screaming and yelling at me, hurling expletives and the “F” word, telling me that if I dared show my face in San Francisco, at a meeting that he was conducting at “my hospital,” he would call the police and have me arrested. And then there is his adoring buddy, Milicent Cranor, who was (initially, back around 1995) truly amazed at my Perry and Carrico interviews (and the fact that, with the exception of Perry, were all recorded) then got real ugly--on a personal level--and attempted to report me to the Los Angeles Police Department, as having been someone who was "stalking" her. (And who, in another case, that almost went to court, accused someone who is a well known Kennedy researcher, of being involved in child abuse!) Clearly, there is—in these two cases—a very strong personal element involved in the rejection of my work. (And I'm supposed to take these people seriously?) THE LARGER POLITICAL ISSUE Returning to the head wounds, and to Pat Speer and others: besides the anatomic evidence of body alteration, there is also the clear evidence of interception—and here I'm referring to the fact that the body arrived in a different coffin, and in a body bag. Absent this evidence, someone might say: “But surely, when considering body alteration, no such thing could have occurred, because there was no ‘element of opportunity.”” But in fact, and to the contrary, BEST EVIDENCE lays it out, and most clearly: there is indeed serious evidence of a covert interception of President Kennedy’s body, or it would not have been delivered to Bethesda Naval Hospital, in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket. All of that is not only laid out—chapter and verse—in BEST EVIDENCE, I was able to get financing, and conducted critical filmed interviews of these witnesses in October, 1980, just prior to publication (in Jan 1981). I then utilized those interviews throughout my book tours, in January, 1981, and subsequently, and released them as the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO. The point I’m making is that these concepts—wound alteration and interception—are interconnected—they are different aspects of the same phenomenon; and the common denominator is fraud in the evidence. In my opinion, and with regard to those who quibble with the head wound evidence, and make up excuses for the Dallas/Bethesda differences (and then behave similarly in the area of throat wound), and then also ignore the evidence of interception--they are simply confusing matters, refusing to face the larger issue, and obstructing the debate. Returning again to the situation of a real estate transaction: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house. And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession. That, ultimately, is where the path leads; and that, ultimately is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window. DSL 1/22/11, Revised and edited, 12:45 PM Los Angeles, CA

Re Cliff Varnell, Quoting: 3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round. Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round. 4) Fabrication of the back wound. Gimme a break. If they were going to make a wound in the back to match the throat wound why did they put it where it obviously couldn't match the throat wound? UNQUOTE FYI (and as you may well know): This matter of the back wound being incorrectly placed "below" the level of the throat wound is discussed at length in BEST EVIDENCE. There's good reason to believe that the throat wound was not known to exist, in the very first hour or two after the JFK shooting, because it was "masked" by the trach incision. I can't do justice to this matter in this post--see the sections in BEST EVIDENCE which deal with the fact that Burkley arrived in the ER (according to reliable wire service reporting) at 12:54 PM, AFTER--I stress after--the the trach tube was in place. So he--for example--would have no way of knowing that the trach incision was OVER a bullet wound (unless someone told him). And,as I recall, his 11/23/63 report reflects that same state of ignorance, i.e., that same error. Anyway, if you will read the very detailed and careful discussion of this matter in BEST EVIDENCE, I hope you will modify your "gimme a break" position, and realize that the misplacement of that back wound may in fact provide important information to who was involved in altering the body. Of course, that "error" was corrected by, say, 2 AM, and if you will carefully examine what witness Richard Lipsey says he heard the doctors saying,you will immediately see an entirely different wound pattern than what Sibert and O'Neill witnessed, and recorded, earlier. DSL 1/21/11; 1:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Re: How you missed this is beyond me. From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978: (quote on) Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. (quote off) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978: (quote on) The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). (quote off) Where do you think the whole discussion of "ice bullets" came from? MY RESPONSE: Well, candidly, I'm amazed (as Helms told the HSCA). No, I wasn't aware of that. And I admit my error. However, I think we probably disagree on what it means. Let me hold forth here with my interpretation of this particular (which I do indeed find most interesting). The problem faced by the autopsy doctors--specifically, Humes and Boswell, but I'm even willing to focus on just Humes here--is that they were (in the words of the report of the two FBI agents) "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. As I hope you will agree: "fragmentation" does not explain "disappearance"--and what Humes faced was "disappearance." Again, he was--according to the report of the two agents witnessing his supposed perplexity, "at a loss to explain" why he could find no bullets. With regard to the back wound, and as stated in Best Evidence, I believe it was nothing more than a man made puncture. (Let me remind you that in the autopsy report, there is no mention of an abrasion collar, the legal prerequisite for a bullet wound; curiously, there IS a clearly visible abrasion collar in the autopsy photos--but that's another matter. And let me bring up again that Humes called Perry the next morning and, according to Perry, asked "if we had made any wounds in the back." A most telling question. Anyway, and back to the main point: I think its interesting that Sibert and/or O'Neill would witness the doctors puzzlement over the absence of a bullet, and then pursue the matter as they (apparently) did. But the answer --I believe--is not some exotic weaponry; rather, its simply a crude puncture of some sort to the back (or shoulder, or whereever one places that wound, i.e., that phony [imho] "wound." I feel certain that that shallow puncture was intended to "match" the stretcher bullet--and nothing more. (And, anticipating any objections: Yes, that would mean the clothing holes would also have to be made "after the fact," but that's what "control of the body" is all about. Its about creating phony bullet trajectories, after the fact, to "explain" this shooting. DSL Los Angeles, CA 1/21/11 1:10 PM PST

Oops. .duplicate post.