David Lifton

Hi Barb, I'm glad this is getting some publicity in the media. Below my typed signature is a letter I wrote to Steve Davis, President of Barrett-Jackson Auctions, LLC--the outfit conducting the auction of this so called "Kennedy ambulance", obtained from an apparently well-to-do third party, who stands to make a pretty penny off its sale. Those who may share my irritation at the memory of President Kennedy (and the mis-use of the iconology of this event) will perhaps excuse the somewhat sarcastic “edge” to my communication to the president of this company. I do hope that this item is withdrawn from auction, or, if auctioned, characterized as what it really is (or appears to be): what Paul Hoch has characterized as a "twin"--a restored vehicle of the same make and model as the vehicle which met Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at about 6 PM, on November 22, 1963: that, and nothing more. Since it has now been discovered (by Steve Lichtman, of the Professional Car Society, and as explained in the article you've linked to) that based on Kennedy Library Records, the original vehicle was crushed, under the aegis of the Kennedy Library--crushed at a Boston junkyard, on June 26, 1986, with beautiful color photographs to document that event--this vehicle cannot possibly be "the real deal." (Of course, there are those who will argue that the Kennedy Library crushed the "wrong" vehicle, and that this is the genuine article.) As I said at the end of my letter to Mr. Davis, I hope these auctioneers have good "E & O" (Errors and Omissions) insurance, because they may well need it if they go forward with this travesty. Remember the saying "its as phony as a $3 bill?" Well, that's because (as Mark Twain would have said) there IS no such thing as a three-dollar bill. The same reasoning applies to this so-called "Kennedy ambulance." By any reasonable interpretation of the available evidence, its a counterfeit. As to motive, you don't have to be Karl Marx to know the answer to that one: Follow the Money. (Even Lee Harvey Oswald could have told you that!) DSL 1/21/1011 Los Angeles, CA 12:10 AM PST * * * BELOW HERE - - TEXT OF MY LETTER (of 1/19/11) TO STEVE DAVIS * * * Dear Steve Davis, I'm not much of a car buff, but your Scottsdale auction has been brought to my attention, and, in particular, the naval ambulance that supposedly met Air Force One when it returned from Dallas on November 22, 1963. As the author of BEST EVIDENCE--an important book on the Kennedy assassination, which was a Book of the Month Club selection, a NY Times best seller, and a book which stayed in print (through four separate publishers) for 17 years, I have a keen interest in these events (and in that ambulance). Chapter 16 of Best Evidence --devoted to events pertaining to that ambulance--describes what happened when that ambulance (carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and the flag-draped coffin) arrived at the front entrance of Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 PM on the night of November 22, 1963. I don't want to bore you with the details—they are really not important to this letter—except to say that immediately after the ambulance dropped off Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK, there was considerable confusion during the next hour, in connection with the delivery of the coffin to the rear entrance, where the morgue was located. In fact, the Navy used two ambulances during the next hour—one being "the decoy"—and that entire story (why a "decoy" was used, and what happened in the hour before the coffin was delivered and the autopsy began)—is what my chapter 16 is all about. Anyway, when I heard about your auction, and learned that the documentation offered in support of the authenticity of this vehicle was a letter from one Admiral Hogan, who was NOT the Surgeon General at the time [he was, two years earlier—dsl], I immediately became suspicious that this ambulance being auctioned was not in fact the genuine article, but rather some "twin" that was restored, and that someone was now seeking to make money by foisting this vehicle on the public as "the real deal." No doubt if it was the genuine vehicle, it might command a price in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; but if it is inauthentic, then what we have here is not just a "restored" vehicle, but a crime. I pointed out to others pursuing this matter that if this vehicle proved to be inauthentic, then it wasn't just a matter of someone having fabricated a letter from "Admiral Hogan". But that, in addition, the forgery went deeper: that whoever did this had to fabricate a false naval identification plate and affix it to the vehicle. So, if the vehicle was a "twin" and not the genuine article, this would not longer be some kind of prank, but serious fraud, involving the falsification of a "naval ID" for a military vehicle. I don't know exactly what laws would be violated, but surely a most elementary analysis would indicate that, if the mails were used, we are immediately talking about conspiracy, mail fraud, etc. Of course, this was all somewhat hypothetical until the events of the last 24-48 hours. Attached is a scan of a color photograph --obtained by Steve Lichtman (of the Professional Car Society) from official files at the Kennedy library--showing that this specific naval vehicle was destroyed by crushing on June 26, 1986, at a Boston junkyard, after approval was sought to do so from the Archivist of the United States. Also attached is a JFK Library chronology of the key events pertaining to the destruction of this vehicle. The person who assisted the government archivists in pursuing this matter is the aforementioned Steve Lichtman of the Professional Car Society; and these documents were just sent to him in the last 48 hours. ( You can reach Steve Lichtman—who is on the Board of Directors of the Professional Car Society, at [private info deleted--dsl.) Now that it is—for all practical purposes—proven that the original ambulance was destroyed on June 26, 1986, it appears evident that the one being auctioned cannot be authentic. But more than that—it seems to me at least, and based on the evidence offered in support of its authenticity, that it is all fabricated. This means that the Hogan letter is a forgery. It also means that the naval ID plate affixed to this vehicle is a forgery. Specifically, that means that someone went to the trouble of counterfeiting this naval ID plate, and then affixing it to this vehicle. While I wouldn't want to say that fabricating a naval ID plate was in the same league as counterfeiting United States currency, it is certainly not a proper thing to do, and is very possible illegal. Since I am not a lawyer, and have never worked in a prosecutor's office, I do not know how many individual crimes were committed in connection with the fabrication of this vehicle, and its fraudulent presentation as being genuine. Certainly, there is conspiracy, and intent to defraud, and perhaps there are other laws that were violated since someone went to the trouble of falsifying the naval ID plate, which is (or was) after all, government property. Perhaps, if you would call the FBI, or the Department of Justice, they might have people who could advise you on this matter--i.e., on the subject of just how many illegalities were committed here, that resulted in this bogus vehicle sporting all this bogus "authentication." Of course, if —despite all the evidence of in-authenticity (not to mention deliberate fraud)—the auction of this vehicle still goes forward, I would think that the seller would have serious legal exposure. What I do know is that anyone who went to the trouble of fabricating all this evidence, has little respect for history; and, specifically, the iconology connected with a major event in this country's history: the assassination of President Kennedy. Anyone who had respect for history, or for the seriousness of this event, would never set out to create a counterfeit vehicle, plus the bogus documents and naval ID plate that attest (falsely) to its authenticity. I do hope this item will not be auctioned—and that perhaps you will consider reporting the details to the authorities who might conduct an investigation to identify the perpetrators of this fraud. Sincerely, David S. Lifton Author, BEST EVIDENCE

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL: I disagree with Pat on several fronts but I have confidence in his temperament as a moderator. I don't agree with David Lifton's body alteration theories. But since surgery to the head is listed in the FBI autopsy report, how can anyone categorically dismiss the possibility, if not probability, of pre-autopsy surgery to the head? It's not a theory and it doesn't belong to David Lifton. UNQUOTE When BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981, my publisher took out a two-page ad in Publisher's Weekly--the cover plus the next inside page--that said something like this:"The only book on the JFK assassination published in this century, that will still be important in the next century." And guess what, it is. No, I don't "own" the theory, but I did the work, connected the dots, got it published--and it happens to explain some of the most critical data in this case. To those who are new to this case, I sometimes feel like saying, "Yes, Virginia, there WAS pre-autopsy surgery. . And if you want to understand what really happened to President Kennedy, you must view the data through that lens.' That was true when I wrote Best Evidence, and its still true today. The fundamental fact of this case is that there is a profound bifurcation in the Dallas/Bethesda records of the wounds on President Kennedy's body--it is a classical "before and after" situation similar to many which come from the field of physics or chemistry. Further, my body alteration theory --which includes all the data on the interception of the body, as well as its alteration (btw) --provides the most logical and sensible way of viewing, and understanding, this bifurcated record. DSL Los Angeles, Ca. 1/20/11; 11:30 PM

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL: Near as I can figure it out, that leaves two possibilities: either JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds in the back and throat, or there was pre-autopsy surgery on the throat and back in order to remove those rounds. The latter scenario has many more problems than the former, imo. While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report, after all -- the kind of extensive alteration required to remove bullets from the back and neck strikes me as much more "far-fetched" than the autopsists theory of blood soluble rounds. Another problem with the body alteration theory is that both the back and throat shots had to have missed their target -- JFK's head -- and both must have been defective "short-shots." If there are other possibilities to explain how JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no bullets recovered, I'm all ears. UNQUOTE Some commends: (1) Re: "While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report," (a) There is no such thing as an "FBI autopsy report". Sibert and O'Neill simply wrote a report of their observations of what the doctors were doing (and saying). That does not constitute an "FBI autopsy report" --any more than if Joe Smith made a steno record of the autopsy proceeding, we would call it the "Joe Smith autopsy report." For the most part, the Sibert and O'Neill report is a record of oral utterances, of the autopsy surgeons--and that is one of its chief values. (b ) The fact that something is mentioned in an FBI 302 report does not make it an uncontrovertible fact. That's why the years of work I did and the publication of my book in January 1981 is properly described as "history" or "investigative reporting" etc.--but the mere mention of something in an FBI report does not mean--ipso facto--that its "a fact." (c ) You are correct that the throat shot did indeed "miss the target." And I have some new information on that score which should prove most interesting. As for the back wound, that was not reported by anyone in Dallas--and I'm referring here to the 1963/64 Dallas medical record (and not some hoked up Q and A by Harrison Livingstone decades later). In my opinion, it was not reported because it was not there. Furthermore, as I noted in Best Evidence (Chapter 11), Humes called Perry the next morning and--according to Perry--asked him if "we had made any wounds in the back." (And, of course, this wound offers a perfect "match" for the stretcher bullet found in Dallas). (d) As for the bullet which struck the throat from the front: Inasmuch as we have a "receipt for a misle"--which imho, has never been adequately explained, plus the plethora of evidence of pre-autopsy alteration, I would say that the only logical explanation for the state of Kennedy's body at the time of autopsy is that there were in fact a number of acts that can properly be described as pre-autopsy "surgery". (e) I also cannot resist calling attention to what Sibert/O'Neill reported that Kellerman told them in the morgue that night: that Kennedy not only cried out "I'm hit" and "Get me to a hospital" (or some such nonsense) but that, ever more bizarre, Kellerman told the FBI Agents that he witnessed Kennedy reaching with his right hand over his shoulder to a spot on his back (or shoulder), thus attempting to legitimize this entry wound which was not seen by anyone in Dallas, and constituting motions not seen on the Zapruder film. I don't think one must be Hercule Poirot to focus one's attention on Secret Service agent Kellerman. DSL 1/20/11 Los Angeles, CA 11:10 PM PST

Quoting Cliff Varnell: QUOTE: "I never claimed they used the phrase "blood soluble," but that is clearly what they were driving at. They had entrance wounds with no corresponding exits, no bullets, and they clearly posed the possibility JFK was hit with an exotic round that "dissolves after contact." Further, one of the FBI guys followed through and began to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose, but the inquiry was diverted by the news of the Magic Bullet. UNQUOTE This is incorrect--not just incorrect, but just plain ridiculous. There is no evidence to support the thesis that Sibert/O'Neill (as straight as straight-arrows can be) called the FBI Lab in pursuit of such a hypothesis--in your words, "to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed." And: "SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose." There is no FBI record or memorandum to that effect; further, I spoke with Sibert personally, and at length, circa 1991, and he never said any such thing. The same is true of an associate of mine (Sean Fetter). How you divine such a purpose is beyond me. The Sibert/O'Neill phone call to the FBI Lab occurred as a direct result of SS Agent Kellerman (who apparently knew of the delivery of the stretcher bullet to the FBI Lab) to call the Bureau. In other words, Humes had a wound without a bullet; Kellerman then played the "missing card" (a bullet without a wound) and Humes then made the call. Suddenly: Humes had a bullet for the puzzle of the "wound without a bullet." No exotic weaponry--but plenty of grounds for suspecting contrivance, and theatrics, on the part of Kellerman, and perhaps Humes, too. In courses on screenplay writing, its called a "Hollywood moment," when the phone suddenly rings. Here, we have a variation of that same idea: a "Hollwyood moment" when a key Secret Service agent suggests that a rather important phone call be made. What I've just described is right there, in the record: but, if you have evidence of Sibert and O'Neill pursuing the "exotic weaponry" hypothesis, I'd sure like to know what that is. DSL 1/20/11 10:45 PM, PST

Quoting Di Eugenio: "As I noted in my review, Boswell's testimony on this point is an outlier. And I find it hard to believe that you do not understand that." Jim: I have news for you. Boswell was there--up close and personal. You were not--nor was Aguilar. Furthermore, Boswell wrote down the measurements he made, right there at the autopsy table, with a ruler. And he wrote them on paper that has Kennedy's blood stains on it. That's what qualifies Boswell's testimony and observations of the highest importance--as what in the law would easily be called the "best evidence." As a history teacher, you ought to know that. Boswell wasn't taking a "vote" --among all the witnesses who may (or may not) have seen the wounds. He was right there, and measured it. I spoke with him about this, in 1979. He put a ruler right up against Kennedy's exposed skull. Calling Boswell "an outlier" gives away your mindset--as if this is a matter of "voting" on the wounds. Calling Boswell "an outlier" is like calling Galileo an "outlier," when he wrote "Starry Messenger," because he could observe the reality of the evidence, rather than go with the teachings of the church. Galileo had a telescope. He observed and reported the reality. Boswell was right there, hands on, measuring the enormous hole in the top of Kennedy's head, with a ruler. And then writing down what he saw: "10 x 17" cm--140 sq cm. About eight inches across. Nothing of the sort was seen in Dallas. Please don't insult our intelligence by calling Boswell "an outlier." DSL Los Angeles, CA 1/20/10; 10:30 PM

In your compilation of Hill quotes, I note this one: QUOTE: I saw President Kennedy grab at his throat and lurch forward. UNQUOTE A question: How can Clint Hill, located behind JFK on the left running board of the follow-up car, see Kennedy "grab at his throat," much less "lurch forward"? Am I misreading something? Or is there some supposed explanation which explains how Hill, located behind JFK, is able to observe something which one would normally associate with an observer located forward of the President? DSL 1/20/10 Los Angeles, 10:15 PM PST

Quoting Pat Speer: "UNDERSTAND that this means the occipital bone was not blown out and that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone. UNDERSTAND that those persisting in the myth the Harper fragment was occipital bone are the ones whose studies and "research" are at odds with the statements of the witnesses, and not me." These are absurd and inaccurate statements. The occipital bone being blown out is a fact of the Parkland record. Its in the testimony of one doctor after another (e.g., Carrico). Its even stated in the Parkland Hospital summary that was turned over to Dr. Burkley on 11/23/63. When I interviewed Dr. Peters, he told me the wound was so low on the back of the head he could look inside and see the cerebellar lobes (or what was left of them) resting on the foramen magnum (the hole in the base of the skull). This is all spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, devoted to the head wounds. As far as the Harper fragment is concerned, its no "myth" that this is occipital bone. It was identified as occipital bone by Dr. Jack Harper, and corroborated by Dr. Noteboom. All this occured back in November, 1963, and was duly recorded in FBI interviews. See chapter 22 of Best Evidence, where it is all spelled out, with full and complete citations to the FBI interviews. Why are you making statements like this, so at odds with the existing record? Do you think your theories and hypotheses are superior, in validity, to the perceptions and observations of qualified observers who were actually there? DSL 1/20/11 Los Angeles, CA 8:15 PM PST

Quote DiEugenio: "Like Gary [Aguilar], who I have had many discussions on the subject with, I believe this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull existed. It was seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, as Gary has proven." FYI: Gary Aguilar has "proven" no such thing. There is a huge difference between the hole in the head seen at Parkland and the huge hole reported at Bethesda--by about 400%. This is all discussed at length in BEST EVIDENCE, Chapter 13, devoted to the head wounding. Aguilar tries to lump them together, blurring the difference. Why, I don't know--but its a massacre of the data, as it really is. When Boswell was under oath, and prodded to actually draw the wound, on a medical school type skull (which Doug Horne purchased, and brought to the deposition) it became plainly evident that there was no comparison. It was a jaw dropping experience for both Gunn and Doug Horne. At that point, Doug realized for certain that we were dealing with alteration of the body, and not just "the photographs." It really gets a bit tiresome to listen to Jim DiEugenio propounding a thesis that ignores the most important data of all--the Parkland observations regarding an egg-sized wound, through which the cerebellum "protruded", and hole that was so large at Bethesda, that it was measured (with a ruler) at "10 x 17", or 170 sq. cm. You're a teacher, Jim. That's supposed to carry some elementary obligation about passing on accurate information. Do the math, Jim, before prattling on and on about what Gary Aguilar has "proved", or what his acolyte Cranor, who supposedly knows "more about the medical evidence than anyone else in the world," supposedly also believes. (Is this the same Cranor who has written there was also no difference between the tracheotomy incision which Perry made in Dallas, and which (in October, 1966) Perry told me was "2-3cm" (and which Carrico, within a day or so) also agreed was that same length, "2 - 3 cm" and with "smooth" edges) --and the autopsy testimony that it was "7 - 8 cm" with "widely gaping irregular edges." This is the same trach incision which was so horrendous, when observed at Bethesda, that Dr. Finck, asked if he could perceive the bullet wound, testified (in New Orleans) that he couldn't, adding: "I don't know why it is not there." Oh pleez. . Jim. . get your facts straight, before so casually mouthing off, re matters about which you clearly know so little. Aguilar and Cranor can massage the data all they want--the Parkland record is not going away, and the Parkland/Bethesda differences--both in the area of the head and neck-- are a fundamental fact of this case. DSL Los Angeles 1/20/11 7:50 PST

I interviewed Doctor Perry in October, 1966--specifically about the size of the trach incision. He said it was "2-3 cm." I also spoke with Dr. Carrico within a day or so--and he said the same thing. Identical. In fact, I interviewed all the Dallas doctors (that I could reach) on this very subject, and the results are laid out, in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, devoted entirely to the throat wound ("Dallas vs Bethesda"). FYI: Dr. McClelland came into the room AFTER the trach tube was in place, and so the flange covered the incision. There's little question in my mind, based on these interviews, and other data, that the throat wound was enlarged by the time the body reached Bethesda. In the "other data" department: Remember what Dr. Finck testified to in New Orleans: that he could not find any trace of the original bullet wound on the edges of the so-called trach incision: "I do not know why it is not there," he said. (And doctor Humes answered a similar question--before the WC--the same way). All of this is laid out crystal clear in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. But, I must say, one of my favorite quotes, indicating body alteration, comes from Paul O'Connor in our on-camera interview, circa 1989 (although this may be in our original 1980 filmed interiew--I'm just not sure): QUOTE: You wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain. UNQUOTE DSL

Just to spell out my own position on these matters. . . : Jack’s heart is in the right place, but I disagree with him on certain specifics. 1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement. I interviewed the key witnesses back in November, 1971, and I believe what they told me. (Moreover, if that is true, then more than one film must have been faked). The films of Dealey Plaza must have been accessed, reviewed, and edited—and in making this statement, I am not claiming to know how the particulars, just that something of this sort must have occurred, to explain the fact that the “car stop” was removed from more than one film. 2. Because of that, I understand (and am very sympathetic to) the idea that “altered reality” is a legitimate way of describing what happened. How else should one describe a situation in which multiple film records were altered? 3. One place---an important one--where I disagree with Jack White: I do not believe that Zapruder was not up on the pedestal, and did not take the film (or “a” film). 4. The alteration of films—notice, I said films (plural)—in Dealey Plaza was a critical (and central) part of the plot to kill President Kennedy. The autopsy had to be falsified, but also bystander film had to be dealt with. Exactly how this was accomplished is as yet unresolved—at least, from the standpoint of published information. 5. It is my personal opinion that, starting later on Friday evening, Zapruder –who was not previously involved in any plotting or any collusion--was figuratively (if not literally) given a tap on the shoulder and brought into collusion with others, along with some explanation as to why his cooperation was needed; and that further, from that point onward, he knowingly (if not intentionally) participated in this operation. He did so by surrendering his film to those he believed to be legitimate reps of “the government” which then led to a situation in which an altered film was back in his possession by Saturday morning, for sale to LIFE magazine. 6. Did Zapruder know that the film he was provided back (for sale) did not have the same image content as the one he took? That is a most interesting question. 7. I do not claim to know Zapruder’s state of mind on Friday night, or what he thought he was involved in; just that he was “cooperating” with legitimate authority, and was –very likely—paid handsomely for his help. We know the contract price jumped from $50,000 on Saturday to $150,000 on Monday, 11/25/63 (a fact that was concealed from the public for years); and I would assume there was probably unacknowledged cash, possibly a lot of cash, that was paid, as well. (This latter statement is my personal opinion). I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was “altered so fast”—which is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to “solve” the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered. Personally, I find it ironic that those who are smart enough to think “outside the box” on this issue of film alteration happen to entertain hypotheses in other areas which I do not believe to be true. Specifically, I am referring here to theories that we did not go to the moon, and/or theories re 9/11—i.e., that the World Trade Center was the result of controlled demolition, or that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11. However, I realize that those who subscribe to these theories are sincere, and so there is not much that can be done about this awkward situation. Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important. I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done) but we also reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board. Happy New Year. DSL 1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Thus speaks DiEugenio: "Body hijacking and alteration: he endorses both Horne and Lifton even though Horne disagrees with Lifton." My response: You are really barking up the wrong tree, DiEugenio, if you think this line of "argument" is going to get you anywhere: (a) Doug Horne and I have been friends for years and (b ) it was because of Doug Horne's devotion to the truth, his interest in history, and his competence as an investigator and an analyst (traits that I believe to be lacking in much of your own writing) that the key autopsy witnesses named in BEST EVIDENCE were called to testify, and the issues laid out in BEST EVIDENCE were pursued. So what if Doug Horne and I disagree on some of the details of body alteration--we've had a healthy dialectic on the subject for many years. It was my book that set Doug down the path he took, and it was Doug's work that strengthened my own conclusions. Need I remind you of the public statement he made on the subject years ago? Here is just the first paragraph, and I quote: David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. UNQUOTE You seem not to understand the fundamental fact that the body of President Kennedy was the most important evidence in this case. The very language you use--"body hijacking"--betrays a profound ignorance of the basis of what was a very serious strategic deception. Maybe you can use that on a late night talk show, but it won't fly in serious debate. If one does not address the fraud in the evidence, then one cannot get to the truth about Dallas. If this were a financial fraud, would you be making fun at someone who took "accounting" seriously? I thnk you need a good class on evidence, DiEugenio, so you will stop denigrating and making comments, out of ignorance, about what is really the most important analysis in this case: the evidence that the body of President Kennedy was altered, prior to autopsy. DSL Los Angeles, CA 12/28/10; 4:40 AM PST POSTSCRIPT: More from DiEugenio: "Photos and x rays altered. Even though neither Horne nor Lifton agrees with that" DSL Response: Are you smoking something? Where did you get the idea that neither of us believe that the X-rays were not altered? I have believed that ever since Mantik published his first article on the subject. (Can you spell "densitometer"??) And still more: " I mean, if you alter the body, why do you have to alter the photos?" First of all: Do you think its possible that you might drop from your writing the phrase "I mean". . . I mean, it makes you look really, uhm, er, I mean, er. .. . .[preemptive deletion. . so I will save the moderator some work. .. ] Second, and again, from DiEugenio: "if you alter the body, why do you have to alter the photos?" DSL Response: See Arthur Conan Doyle, under "imperfect forgery" . . know what I mean? Ya know. . Third: "Zapruder film altered, and not mildly but radically. I mean the whole post production schedule." DSL Response: I mean. . really, er, I mean. . what's wrong with a radical alteration? I mean. .do you think the folks that murdered the President said, "Hey, Joe. . I mean. . do you really want to do a radical alteration of this film of Kennedy's murder? I mean, Joe, isn't that going a bit too far? I mean, Joe, think about it, we just murdered the guy, and we even took the bullets out of his body, and altered the wounds, but this here is radical, a radical alteration (!) . and I think that's going too far, Joe. . .I mean, really, Joe. . ya know what I mean, Joe? What are you trying to do, Joe. . I mean, are ya trying to win an Oscar for special effects, or something, Joe?. . know what I mean Joe. . wanna another beer, Joe? .. . I mean, really Joe. . think about what I'm saying, Joe. . I'm serious. . I think this is a radical alteration and we've got to obey some limits here, Joe. . know what I mean?"

FYI: I find most of Raymond Carrol's comments "right on." But If you want a good example of a "dead end," your writings presenting the notion that Oswald was NOT on the McWatter's bus and also NOT in Whaley's cab are a fine example of something that is entirely false and (in addition) can be validly described as a real dead end. Not only is your hypothesis unsupportable, it presents an easy target for the likes of DVP (with whom I disagree on in numerous critical areas), but who--in this particular instance-- happens to have you dead to rights, in his criticism of your "analysis" of the bus-ride/cab ride business. And, fyi, it does not surprise me that Mr. DiEugenio applauds you for your completely unfounded and weak hypothesis, in that area. If that's the sort of thing that is going into your TV script about "the life and times of Oswald," I'm sure the audience will be on the edge of their seats, as they watch the plotters masterminding your completely illogical and ill-founded version of this bus-taxicab "conspiracy theory." DSL

Thank you for the reply, David. The first call sheet also gives dates of 11/23/63, and refers to the burial vault being delivered to Arlington. There is also no mention of transporting the body from anywhere to Bethesda as I would expect to find on a first call sheet. My assumption is that the first call sheet was filled out at a later date, and not "as it happened". On that basis, there is still much ambiguity as to who and when the body was removed from the shipping casket, and who delivered the body to Bethesda and when it was delviered. JW REPLY BY DSL: The "burial vault" being delivered to Arlington is an obvious reference to the mahogany coffin purchased by the Kennedy family after midnight at Gawlers. This is thoroughly described in Manchester's Death of a President. Your "assumption" that the first call sheet "was filled out at a later date, and not 'as it happened'" is just that--your assumption. There is no good reason to believe that to be the case, and, consequently, your assertion (based on that "assumption") that "there is still much ambiguity as to who and when the body was removed from the shpping casket" is something that emanates from your unwarranted assumption, and not from the record, as it currently exists. Yes, it is true that There is . . no mention (in the Gawlers documents) of transporting the body from anywhere TO Bethesda" and Doug Horne worked hard trying to pin that down. As I recall, the Gawler's people were evasive. What happened was that it was I who supplied the "first call sheet" to Doug Horne at the ARRB, and when Doug first contacted Hagan, he tried to claim to know nothing about any such document, not realizing I had possession of a copy, and had already supplied it to the ARRB. Then came a phone call from Hagan to Doug Horne "correcting" his previous statements, etc. To correctly narrate this sequence, one would need all the outside contact reports and interviews. But no: Gawler's never admitted--outright--that it was their hearse that picked up the body, and --just as important--WHERE that event occurred. All we know (from the first call sheet) is that it was (apparently) in a "metal shipping casket", which--of course--is exactly what was witnessed by Dennis David, the Besthedsa Officer of the Day; Paul O'Connor, who was inside the room, and--I might add--Lt. Richard Lipsey, who was the aide to General Whele, who was the Commanding Officer of the Military District of Washington. FYI: Lipsey was at the back of Bethesda when the black hearse carrying the casket first arrived (6:35 PM, per the Boyajian report). Again, may I point out: you are the one who is introducing needless ambiguity into this situation. The senior people at Gawlers know very well where they picked up the body (in a "metal shipping casket", as their first call sheet states). Its just they they didn't want to surrender that information to the ARRB. Furthermore, had I not supplied the "first call sheet" (which I had obtained, from another source) to the ARRB, Gawlers might very well have gotten away with the notion that no such document existed in their files. Fortunately, I had the document, supplied it Doug Horne, and so Gawlers had to admit what it was, and that it originated from their own files. Again, in writing this extemporaneously, I defer to documentary record created by Doug Horne when this "Gawlers investigaiton" actually took place at the time of the ARRB. DSL Los Angeles, CA 12/22/10 1:30 AM PSt

You are absolutely correct, Raymond Carrol. I find your statements about Judyth, and other matters, right on target. And if we find ourselves in the same town again, we must have another dinner. My best, DSL

Re your statement: “All I said was that the first call sheet from Gawlers mentions that they (the Gawler's team) removed the body from a shipping casket. They didn't specify when. I'm going on the assumption that the funeral home people didn't see or handle the body until after the autopsy was done.” First of all, your basic assumption is incorrect. The Sibert and O’Neill FBI report makes clear that several the Gawlers people were inside the morgue, and sitting in the bleachers, during—I repeat “during”—the autopsy. Additionally: You may not have specified “when” but the document itself should eliminate any ambiguity on that subject. The “first call sheet” provides the essential context here. That document is filled out when the “first call” is received by Gawlers funeral home. So what that sheet records is the information from the “first call” to the funeral home. When it states “metal shipping casket”, what the document is recording is what they (Gawlers) were told on the phone, or what their employees personally witnessed at the time of that “first call.” The relevant question is: When was that time? Answer: 6:35 PM EST, according to the Boyajian report. The black hearse that arrived at the back of Bethesda and which delivered the body in a shipping casket (according to Dennis David, who was a witness to that unloading, and Paul O’Connor, who was inside the morgue, and helped open the casket) was almost certainly from Gawlers. That can’t be proven, because Hagan wouldn’t admit to it. But your assumption that information recorded on that “first call” sheet applies to events six hours later, in the A.M., and after the autopsy was completed, is entirely unwarranted. What you have done is taken the term “shipping casket” and attempted to insert it in the narrative some four to six hours later. No one inside the morgue has ever stated—nor is there any justification for believing—that a shipping casket was inside the morgue, or brought to the morgue, after the initial delivery of the body at 6:35 EST (per the Boyajian report). And specifically, there is no reason to believe that the President’s body was placed into a shipping casket after midnight on November 22, 1963, and after the autopsy was completed. DSL Los Angeles, CA 12/16/10; 11:30 AM PST

FWIW: I used the "McClelland diagram" in my 1989 filmed interview with Dr. McClelland and he said that it accurately portrayed what he was describing in his Warren Commission testimony. (Pat Valentino was also present). DSL Los Angeles, CA 12/13/10, 9 PM PST

The agent was definitely Doyle Williams. Also note: Williams was the one who was the stand in for Governor Connally in the photo reconstruction of the assassination. FYI: I have an excellent, detailed, an professionally filmed interview of Williams, which I conducted around July, 1990. As I recall, Williams was either a black belt or a judo expert, was armed, and if he had not reacted (relatively calmly) as he did, the situation could have escalated completely out of control. If anyone has specific questions, this film can be consulted for answers. (I also have a very fine interview of Vince Drain). In any event, please do note that the FBI agent who was attacked, in this manner, was Doyle Williams. DSL 12/9/10; 6:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

As spelled out in BEST EVIDENCE—documentary evidence exists which indicates that, with regard to the JFK autopsy, there were 3 entries of 2 caskets, at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Those three entry times–each documented in separate (and most official) government reports, from three distinctly different government sources--are: 6:35 PM, 7:17 PM, and 8 PM EST, and can be synopsized as follows: Entry #1: 6:35 PM - - the arrival of President Kennedy’s body in a shipping casket Entry #2: 7:17 PM -- the arrival of the Dallas casket (empty, at this point) Entry #3: 8:00 PM -- the 2nd entry of the same Dallas casket (now containing the body) In other words, and now focusing on the rear entrance at the back of Bethesda Naval Hospital, the evidence indicates the following sequence of events: (1) the President’s body first arrived (at 6:35 PM) in a shipping casket; (2) the Dallas casket (at that point, empty) then arrived (at 7:17 PM); then (subsequent to 7:17 PM) the body was returned to the Dallas casket which was then brought outside Bethesda, placed in a Navy ambulance; and then (finally). . . (3) at 8 PM, the Dallas casket (now containing the body) was brought back inside the hospital, under full escort of the MDW casket team. To state the matter slightly differently: the body first arrived at 6:35 PM in a shipping casket; and then the Dallas casket entered twice: once, at 7:17 PM, when it was empty; and then a second time at 8 PM, when the President’s body—having arrived earlier in the morgue—was then returned to the casket in which it had begun its journey from Dallas some six hours earlier. Then, that casket—now containing the body—was brought back inside at 8 PM, under full escort, for the “official entry.” These tactics were apparently designed to establish (for the benefit of those who did not know about the intercept) the superficial appearance of “continuity,” and to hide the fact that the President’s body had ever been out of the Dallas casket, prior to its arrival at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the autopsy was to be performed. By employing these tactics, and then (in addition), putting everyone who witnessed the first entry under a very official “order not to talk” (issued verbally that night, to almost all of those present, including the autopsy doctors), and then restating that order, in writing, on 11/26/63, the fact that a covert interception had occurred earlier in the day (as evidenced by these multiple casket arrivals), was concealed. Also concealed was the fact that the Dallas casket –when it first arrived at Bethesda—was empty. All of this was concealed from the American public and the separate pieces of this puzzle were unearthed, analyzed, and properly assembled and published in BEST EVIDENCE in January, 1981. For the first time, the basic facts about what happened on the night of November 22, 1963, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, was made public. A more detailed discussion of each of the 3 entries now follows. * * * Entry #1--at 6:35 PM EST--was the arrival of the shipping casket. This entry is documented in the report of USMC Sgt. Roger Boyajian, dated 11/26/63. Boyajian was head of the security detail at the morgue. This entry was witnessed by Dennis David (See B.E., Chapter 25)--who was outside the room--and by medical technician Paul O'Connor, who was inside the room (See B.E., Chapter 26). Paul O'Connor worked at a funeral home, as a teenager. He was also a med tech in Vietnam. He knows what a shipping casket is; and he knows what a body bag is. Anyone wishing to evaluate his credibility can observe his demeanor as he recounts his experience, in the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO. The filmed interview was done in October, 1980, at his home in Gainesville, Florida, just two months prior to the release of BEST EVIDENCE. Paul opened the shipping casket; and said that the President's body was "naked, except for a sheet, a bloody sheet, wrapped around the head." Dennis David, who never entered the morgue, witnessed the arrival of that casket, in a black hearse, accompanied by some men in morgue smocks. Almost certainly: that was a Gawler's hearse (but that cannot be proven with certainty). Some 20 minutes later, Dennis David was at the front of Bethesda, and standing in the rotunda, when he saw the cavalcade from Andrews Air Force Base arrive at Bethesda--i.e., the Navy ambulance containing Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and the Dallas casket. According to press reports, the Navy ambulance rolled to a stop at 6:55 PM, EST. And that brings us to "Entry #2". Entry #2: The first entry of the Dallas Casket (which was empty at the time). This entry was documented by the two FBI agents, when questioned by Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter, in March, 1964. By combining what they told Specter, with other information (mostly, from public sources), here’s what happened. The Kennedy party left the Navy ambulance. There was, approximately, a 12 minute "pause". Then, an Admiral (Adm. Calvin Galloway) got into the ambulance, and raced off. The tri-service casket team tried to follow, but evasive action was taken, and they "lost" the ambulance. See my Chapter 16 (“The Decoy Ambulance”). I interviewed the men from the casket team in 1967 and 1968. They related how they "lost" the ambulance, and how it was then explained to them (by Navy officials) that they had followed the "wrong" ambulance, and that the Navy was using a "decoy." Meanwhile, however, the FBI agents did NOT "lose" sight of the ambulance. And so that brings us to the back of Bethesda Naval Hospital and what I am calling “Entry #2.” This entry occurred at 7:17 PM, and is established (as noted above) by the FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill, when interviewed by the Warren Commission. That time is also corroborated by US Army Reports which I obtained under the FOIA. Again, see Chapter 25 of Best Evidence (and also Chapter 28) for further information on this 7:17 entry. Also note: when the two FBI agents got inside the hospital, they were, for a brief while, not permitted to enter the autopsy room. This was noted in their own report (See Chapter 28 of Best Evidence) and was almost certainly done to prevent them from seeing that the body was already there. Now, focusing on the statement that the casket—at the time of the 7:17 entry—was empty: The Dallas casket had arrived at the front of the hospital at 6:53 or 6:55 PM (the former time, according to the Secret Service; the latter, according to press reports). Since the body had ALREADY arrived (See “Entry #1” above), in the shipping casket, the Dallas casket which arrived at Bethesda must have been empty. In other words, Entry #2 --the first entry of the Dallas casket—pertains to an empty casket. The matter of “multiple caskets” was recognized at the time. Dennis David, for example, was aware of multiple casket entries, was told that all this was the result of "security measures"--i.e., that the Navy was using a "decoy” to prevent anyone from “hijacking the body.” (See Chapter 25, BEST EVIDENCE). Entry #3: The second entry of the Dallas casket (Time: this occurred at 8PM.) At that time, the Dallas casket was (again) escorted inside, this time accompanied by USAF Gen. Godfrey McHugh, and the tri-service casket team (officially known as the “MDW” casket team, MDW being the abbreviation for “Military District of Washington”). The time of entry is firmly established by their written report—it was 8 PM. Furthermore, the Dallas casket did contain the President's body at this time. (We know that because members of the MDW team witnessed a casket opening). Also: The wrappings were different between the time Paul O'Connor first saw the body ("completely naked except for a sheet, a bloody sheet, around the head") and the time the FBI saw the body. The two FBI agents (i.e., Sibert and O’Neill) wrote that the bod was "completely covered" with a sheet, and that there was a "second. . blood soaked wrapping" on the head." And that's also when they noted that, with the removal of the wrapping, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." To recap: it would appear that the Dallas casket entered the morgue area twice--the first time (at 7:17) when it had arrived from Andrews Air Force Base, and was empty; the second time, when it was brought inside at 8PM, by which time the body had been put back inside the Dallas casket*; and, according to the FBI, was completely covered with a sheet, and had a second, "blood soaked" wrapping on the head. *Note: there is no eyewitness to the return of the body to the Dallas casket, and it being brought back outside the hospital, so that it could then be carried back inside, at 8P.M. We simply infer that this must have happened, because of the known, and well documented, sequence of arrivals; and, further, the evidence (chiefly from the FBI report) that there was a brief period when the agents were not allowed to entry the autopsy area, and put in a separate room—supposedly, for the taking of X-rays. This “intermission” is the subject of Chapter 28, of BEST EVIDENCE (“The Clandestine Intermission Hypothesis”). ABOUT SOME OF THE POSTS I HAVE BEEN READING ON THIS THREAD: Any notion that the shipping casket has anything whatsoever to do with the delivery of the embalmed body, to the funeral home, hours later, is without foundation, and is, frankly, absurd. The President's body was embalmed, after 1 or 2 AM in the morning. It was then placed in the expensive mahogany casket that was purchased, by the Kennedy family, at Gawlers. That casket, with the President's embalmed body inside, was then placed in a Navy ambulance, and driven from Bethesdsa Naval Hospital to the White House. All that occurred after 4 AM in the morning. So anyone coming to this case, decades later, and attempting to introduce the notion that the embalmed body went from Bethesda back to Gawlers, in a shipping casket, is only confusing matters. No "shipping casket" was seen or utilized later in the evening. And the President's body never went back to any funeral home--it went directly from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the White House. The shipping casket appears in the narrative at only one point in time: it is the container in which President Kennedy's body first arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 PM. Another point: If President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 PM in a shipping casket—and that time comes from the official report of Sgt Roger Boyajian, who ran the USMC security detail—then that means that the casket aboard Air Force One (at the time it landed at Andrews Air Force Based, at 6 PM EST) was empty. And if that is so—i.e., if the Dallas casket was empty at the time of the 6 PM off-load at Andrews AFB—then the Dallas casket must have been empty upon take-off from Dallas at 2:47 PM. This is all spelled out, a step at a time, in BEST EVIDENCE, in chapters 25-28. •Chapter 25 is the account of Dennis David, just as I discovered it in July, 1979. •Chapter 26 is the account of Paul O'Connor, just as I discovered it in August, 1979. •Chapter 27 contains other important data (e.g., the 11/26/63 "order not to talk") •Chapter 28 describes, in detail, what happened at Bethesda, inside the hospital, and how the FBI, arriving with the Dallas casket at 7:17 PM, were kept out of the room for a short while, to conceal the fact that the President's body was already there, i.e., already inside. FYI: Commander Humes (apparently) knew all about this rigmarole. Tucked into his sworn WC testimony can be found a most interesting statement, which offered some legal protection should there be any future inquiry, by explicitly stating that he did not concern himself with the "security measures" at the time. When the ARRB (via Doug Horne, preparing questions, and Jeremy Gunn, asking them) asked Humes when he FIRST saw the body, Humes admitted that he "first saw" the body at 6:45 PM, a good 47 minutes before the (7:35pm) time he gave in his WC testimony. Finally, I am surprised to see anyone claiming to be a serious student of this matter attempting to explain these serious differences in time of arrival by suggesting that perhaps the military and government people on the east coast were somehow confused by the fact that Dallas, where the assassination occurred, was on Central Standard Time, whereas Bethesda was on Eastern Standard Time. (Let me suggest that even Gerald Posner would never advance such a foolish idea). When my book was first published, Time Magazine gave it full coverage--in a 2 page spread--not as a book review, but as a news story. (I have provided a pdf of that story to Bernice, and she has posted it). Also, at the time, two other sailors, on duty that night at Bethesda, immediately came forward with corroborating accounts, about the multiple casket arrivals. (One was named Donald Rebentisch; and I interviewed him in connection with Brian McKenna's excellent documentary, aired on Canadian TV, titled "The Empty Casket"). But lets get to the bottom line: In the final analysis, I think the basic problem with all this is not logical, but psychological. People do not want to believe that high officials of their government were involved in perpetrating a deception of this magnitude. When BEST EVIDENCE was published, my publisher (Macmillan) ran large ads in the New York Time showing the picture of the casket being offloaded at Andrews Air Force Base--with the caption: "The casket was empty." So that is the bottom line: the casket was empty, but actually, there is more. THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS For the casket to be empty at Andrews Air Force Base (at the 6 PM offload) means that within minutes of the Dallas onload (2:18 PM, CST), the body must have been removed from the casket, and taken off the aircraft--yes, at Love Field, in Dallas. Today, I know much more about what went on at the back of the plane, and how this happened, and will have more to say about all this in my next work, FINAL CHARADE. But let me assure anyone reading this that such an event did indeed happen. Yes, the body of President Kennedy was in fact removed from the Dallas casket within minutes of its onload at Air Force One. What happened next is another aspect of the story, and beyond the scope of this Internet post. But that is what the empty casket—at the "east coast" end of the line (i.e., at Andrews Air Force Base)—is all about. Ultimately, what this means is that within minutes of the arrival of JFK's body at Love Field (2:14 CST) and its onload onto Air Force One (2:18 CST), the focus was on getting JFK’s body OUT of the coffin, the purpose apparently being its alteration prior to the east coast autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital (and that, of course, is the larger thesis of BEST EVIDENCE). The notion that the target of this whole operation--i.e., JFK's murder--was not just President Kennedy himself (i.e., JFK, viewed as a mortal, who was to be killed)--but ALSO his BODY, which (after his death) was to be altered to support a false story of how he died (and to create the false appearance that Oswald was the assassin) is the key to this murder case. That notion is politically incorrect, but it happens to be the truth: indeed, it represents the ultimate "inconvenient truth" of the mid-20th century—specifically, that both President Kennedy was targeted (for death) and his body was targeted (for alteration), in what was tantamount to twin operations designed not just to remove the President from office but also to create a false history of how he died. If this case were fictionalized, and appeared on an episode of LAW AND ORDER, or CSI, there would be no disputing the fact that the body of the victim, placed on an airplane in City A, was removed from the coffin, prior to takeoff, and that is why the coffin was empty by the time the plane landed in City B. But Americans don't want to hear that, about President Kennedy, or his assassination. But the day will come when that is in fact the accepted truth in this case. As Josephine Tey wrote: Truth is the daughter of time. DSL 12/7/10; 5:30 PM PST Re-edited, 12/11/10; 12:05 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

Pat Speer. . . : You write: If you'd had an inkling, you'd know that I went back to the earliest statements of the Parkland physicians, and have shown that what they actually said scarcely relates to what people like yourself would like us to believe they said. You would like us to believe they described an exit on the far back of the head in the occipital region. What they really described was a single wound--presumably of both entrance and exit, on the right back half of the head, primarily in the parietal region. UNQUOTE This is false. I wince at the thought that some eager-to-learn high school student is going to read your assertions, and come away with a complete misunderstanding of the underlying record. The original record from Parkland Hospital describes a wound at the right rear of the head, believed to be an exit. That is in the Dallas medical reports, and it is reflected in the "first day" newspaper accounts at the time. It is also reflected in the testimony of the Dallas doctors. There is not a single medical report from Dallas that indicates an entrance at the rear of the head, as Vincent Salandria noted back in 1965. I'm not going to spend time and waste space repeating what is already spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence. But one Dallas doctor and nurse after another, with minor variations, repeats the same thing, again and again. Dr. Jenkins, in his report written on 11/23/63, reports how the cerebellum "protruded" through the wound. (Do you understand where the cerebellum is located?) In a 1966 telephone interview, Dr. Peters told me, and this is quoted in Ch 13 of Best Evidence, how he could see the cerebellum resting against the foramen magnum, the hole in the bottom of the skull. When Stanhope Gould (with whom I worked closely in 1988, and who was the CBS producer for Cronkite's Watergate coverage) revisited those doctors in 1988, they repeated the same thing: an exit wound in the back of the head. (See the KRON-TV hour long documentary, with excellent graphics). So what the heck are you talking about? I don't know how you have managed to massage the data to come up with the conception you apparently have, but based on the Parkland medical records, the Parkland testimony, the "first day evidence" from newspaper interviews, etc., it is quite incorrect. Decades ago, I interviewed those doctors by phone, and in 1982, and 1983, did my own in-person interviews (See the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence); and I then re-filmed them in 1989. The head was so completely undamaged, when viewed from the front, that Nurse Audrey Bell told me how she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was, and he moved the head slightly to one side, to show her the wound at the rear. It is you who appears to be engaged in wishful thinking. Wake up and smell the Cappucino, Pat Speer. If you do not understand that the head wound in Dallas was different in size and location from the head wound as observed (and reported) at Bethesda--and that, according to the Bethesda diagram, it was some 400% larger--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case. The body of President Kennedy was the most important item of evidence in the case against Oswald. That's why the wounds had to be altered (and bullets removed) to create a completely false appearance (by the time of the official autopsy), one that would support the (false) thesis of Oswald's guilt. This not only applies to the "head wounds," but to the throat wound as well. That is why the wound described by the Dallas doctors as a small entry, through which a neat trach incision was made, was so mutilated and enlarged, by Bethesda, that the original trach incision was not even visible. As Dr. Finck testified in New Orleans: "I do not know why it is not there." Magic, perhaps? Again, I repeat: If you do not understand that the President's wounds were different-- in size and location--in Dallas, and at Bethesda--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case. The President's wounds--what was tantamount to the legal diagram of the shooting--were changed, to accommodate the "Oswald did it alone" theory. That's not just an "obstruction of justice." That's the key to this whole murder. DSL P.S. One of the most serious problems with the Jesse Ventura show was the failure to address any of this critical evidence--not the FBI report indicating "surgery of the head area", nor the demonstrable changes in the wound pattern (between Parkland and Bethesa) plus the copious evidence of an intercept, between Dallas and Bethesda. The reason the assassination of President Kennedy must have been an "inside job" is not because of some hypothesis about a Watergate burglar, or because of Hunt's "deathbed confession", or because Gerald Ford made a dumb editorial revision of a wound (10 months later). All of that is very interesting, but certainly not as important as the central fac that the President's body was intercepted in the hours immediately following the murder, and the wounds altered. For Ventura to ignore this critical evidence, and then to put out a documentary which makes the charge that we had a coup d'etat, is simply beyond my comprehension. Certainly, that is not what I would call "brilliant." I would also like to know the full story behind why the Zapruder film was shown, without focusing on the head snap. Instead, Ventura--who obviously believes there was a high level plot in this case-- is shown repeatedly saying "back and tothe left." But this is like someone fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Does Ventura's failure to use the Zapruder film to show the headsnap mean that he was prohibited from doing that, by contract? Was he prohibited from showing the Zapruder film, the way anyone would show it, to a high school audience? I'd sure like to know the full story behind that rather peculiar omission. DSL

Hi Jack, . . interesting, and possible, I suppose; but here's something even more striking that I'd like to know: who is the man immediately to her right (left in the picture)? By any chance, is that the same DPD detective who is in the background (and to the left, hands folded in front of him) when LHO is shot by Ruby on Sunday? (Or is that simply a coincidence?). Please do comment. Thanks. DSL

FWIW: In my opinion, assassination by bullets (in this case) was preceded by assassination with words--character assassination, that is. The atmosphere in Dallas was poisonous, and was a major factor in being able to recruit for a plot. In short, Kennedy was painted in a false light. Repeatedly. I had heard about Dallas's atmosphere from the book Dallas: Public and Private, by Warren Leslie. I remember the first time I came face to face with it on a microfilm reader. I had ordered the reels of the Dallas Morning News for July, 1960, to see how that newspaper covered the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. As I told friends at the time, this newspaper reads as if the Civil War was recently over; and the enemy camp was ensconced in Washington. No matter what Kennedy did, no matter what decision he made--it was always interpreted in some nefarious way. In my opinion, that has a lot to do with what happened in Dallas in November, 1963--and why so many thought Kennedy was a genuine threat to the national security. DSL

For what its worth, I had very substantial liaison with the ARRB on a number of matters, and one of them was the Zapruder film. In that regard, the Board got the Life/Zapruder contracts (which they did not have) from me, in June, 1996; and I wrote at least one 50 page memorandum which served to educate any reader as to how 8mm film duplication worked, and also the rudiments of optical printing. This memo also set the stage for deposing Robert Groden. Subsequently, I was actually called as a witness, and donated a rather special 35mm optical negative that I personally made from one of Moe Weitzman's originals. After Professor Simon spoke, the transcript shows that Judge Tunheim made the following remarks: QUOTE: "I will also note for the record that the Board has received thoughtful comments from David Lifton, who is an author who is concerned about this issue as well. And we have also received a letter which will be part of the public record from an attorney for the Zapruder family. UNQUOTE DSL

Dulles did NOT meet with LBJ at the LBJ ranch the week before the assassination. That photograph of Dulles, LBJ, etc. is from the summer of 1960. DSL

Anyone interested in Allen Dulles ought to read the detailed description of my confrontation with him at UCLA in December, 1965. I don't know of anyone else who had an actual "sit-down" with Dulles, as I did, and it is all spelled out in detail in Chapter 2 of BEST EVIDENCE. DSL

I am sure I can locate the original memo I wrote--and distributed privately (and which Fetzer, who loves publicity, then posted)--and which laid out my concerns about Fetzer attributing 9/11 to Israel and certain specific American Jews. The fact is that a much more powerful case can be made now, because AFTER I distributed that post, I then discovered the "Rediscover911" website. I focused on that, and then---guess what: Fetzer resigned from that site. Anyway, it takes valuable time to dig up all this stuff, but maybe I should repost my original memo. DSL