Paul Rigby

The following extract helps clarify this issue; and demonstrates that Connally’s clothes were treated with the same reverence for their evidential value as Kennedy’s: (1) Frazier, op. cit., v. 5, pp. 63, 64, 65 (2) Commission Document No. 1066, p. 282. (3) Ibid., p. 283. (4) Frazier, loc. cit. (5) Armed Forces, Autopsy Manual, p. 60: “If the bullet was fired from close range (under 18 inches), chemical or metallic residues are likely to be present on the skin or clothing of the wounded person.” (6) According to the FBI, “The hole in the back of the coat is approximately ¼” [wide] by ⅝” [0.6 cm x 1.6 cm], being elongated in a horizontal direction” (Commission Document No. 1066, p. 282). (7) “Commission Exhibit No. 679. ‘Body diagram marked by Dr. Shaw to show the entry and exit wounds on Governor Connally’s chest, wrist, and thigh,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 336. Note: Dr. Shires said the Secret Service prepared the original charts (v. 6, p. 112). Dr. Shaw had to correct them and the revised ones (v. 6, pp. 86-87; v. 4, pp. 104-105, 126). (8) The hole was ⅜” x ⅝” (0.96 x 1.6 cm). Commission Document No. 1066, p. 282 (9) “Commission Exhibit No. 679,” loc. cit. (10) Commission Document No. 1066, p. 282. (11) Ibid. (12) Ruth J. Standridge, “Testimony of Ruth Jeanette Standridge [date March 21, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 118. Note: During the motorcade, Carter sat in the front seat of the Vice-President’s follow-up car. Carter had the Secret Service radio on his lap while the first shot was fired from the car (Carter, op. cit., v. 7, p. 474). Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez stated that a nurse at Parkland “…quite frantically…tried to turn them [Connally’s clothing] over to either Cliff Carter, an LBJ aide…or I” (Henry B. Gonzalez, Letter to Fred T. Newcomb, dated Nov. 1, 1974, p. 1). (13) Fletcher Knebel, “After the Shots: The Ordeal of Lyndon Johnson,” Look, March 10, 1964, p. 28. Note: This slip is absent from the Warren Commission’s evidence. According to Gonzalez, “Cliff simply did not want to be burdened with the sack and wanted me to take it instead.” (Gonzalez, ibid.) (14) Knebel, op. cit., p.33. Gonzalez said he retained the clothing “…because I had not been able to turn it over to anyone else.” (Gonzalez, ibid., p. 2.) (15) “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt,” Life, Nov. 25, 1966, p. 48. (16) Ibid. (17) Henry B. Gonzalez, Letter to Fred T. Newcomb, dated Nov. 15, 1974. Henry B. Gonzalez, Letter to Fred T. Newcomb, dated Nov. 1, 1974, p. 2. (18) Life, loc. cit. (19) Ibid. (20) “Commission Exhibit No. 683. ‘Front view of coat worn by Governor Connally at the time of the assassination,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 340. “Commission Exhibit No. 684. ‘Back view of coat worn by Governor Connally at the time of the assassination,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 341. “Commission Exhibit No. 687. ‘Front view of pants worn by Governor Connally at the time of the assassination,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 344. (21) Thomas J. Kelley, “Testimony of Thomas J. Kelley [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 134. (22) Shaw, op. cit., v. 4, p. 112. “Connally’s bullet-torn suit, his necktie, and his shirt with French cuffs were displayed for a time at the state archives in Austin, and the clothing is still there. However, to see them, one must get Connally’s personal permission.” (Ann F. Crawford and Jack Keever, John B. Connally: Portrait in Power, p. 299.)

Must be the influence of Greer's testimony. It has its moments, you know. See if you, too, can spot the minor discrepancy with the official version of JFK’s time at Parkland: Credit to Fred Newcomb for the spot.

This topic has been played to death on various forums. I can only advise anyone interested in wasting their time on something as ridiculous as what is being purposed here, then do a search on Lancer under the name "Greer" and read what was posted on the subject. Greer doesn't reach across his body so to even have a chance at shooting anyone in the back seat. Connally and Nellie are between Greer and the leaning President. The kill shot to JFK came between exposures Z312 and Z313, thus when Z312 and Z314 are compared to one another - there is no sign of a recoil pertaining to Greer's hand upon having just been alleged to have fired a hand gun. Which is, of course, why Bill is once again taking an obsessive interest in a thread on the subject. Great fake, by the way - any idea who was responsible for it? Usual high quality of research and thought, Bill - Newcomb & Adams never formally published Murder From Within. They did, however, circulate copies of the manuscript among US congressmen and senators. So much for the "quick buck" allegation.

Really? One wonders who the real threat came from – Castro’s thoroughly penetrated networks, or Section D of the CIA’s Counterintelligence section. CIA presumably had its own people within the Secret Service in November 1963. This is a vastly under-explored topic. Here's one view of the state of play a decade later, in 1974:

Armed with a flintlock that belched smoke!

Uncharacteristically childish, from a man whose contributions on every other subject are shrewd and worth-having. You're better than this. Distance from front-seated Greer to (an elevated) President in the opposite rear corner? Point-blank? Not quite. But a damn sight easier shot than from distance with a rifle. And as to traces of powder etc on Kennedy's clothing, remind me how carefully that particular piece of evidence was preserved? Assuming Greer did shoot Kennedy, and Kennedy was facing forwards immediately prior to the head shot, we would expect to find a left front entrance and a right rear exit. This is exactly what we do find: The sound: A.J. Millican: “It sounded like a .45 automatic, or a high-powered rifle,” 19WCH486. S.M. Holland: “It would be like you’re firing a .38 pistol right beside a shotgun, or a .45 right beside a shotgun,” Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas, p.84. Remember the topography of Elm, Peter - it dips and slants: the assassination scene was not "in the center of everyone's visual focus." It was a sparsely populated stretch at the motorcade's fag-end; and the occupants of the vehicle, not to mention the following vehicles, further hindered clear line of sight for potential eyewitnesses.

Really? One wonders who the real threat came from – Castro’s thoroughly penetrated networks, or Section D of the CIA’s Counterintelligence section.

Mark, Montaigne commented "Never argue with those who deny first principles" - but this is such an important point it's worth revisiting. Your analysis of who did what and when, temperate and conventional though it is, has no meaning for me because it is entirely shaped by the film record. To restate my position: I don't believe the films and don't cite them. Why? Because they are irreconcilable with the eyewitness testimony. One must make a choice. I sympathise with the tiredness, and by all means adduce as many experts as you choose. But be aware of those experts who reached very different conclusions.

But not to me, Tim, nor to any objective standard of logic. You invite us to believe it was easier to shoot Kennedy from distance with a rifle than from close-up with a handgun. Er, why? It is not self-evident. Quite the contrary. See my thread on special forces typology: Direct-Positive is always to be preferred. Then there is the small matter of history and precedent in US presidential assassinations: Handguns, from close range. Sorry, Tim, but no, that is not, and never has been, my theory. I follow Newcomb & Adams as to the origin of the first shot from the rear: A challenge, then, to all the many adept film & picture afficionados, Bill Miller included - let's see the best enlargement obtainable of the SS hand in question. If my belief is erroneous, show it for all to see. You forgot intense religious bigotry, the most serious, and attested, runner of them all. In the eyes of the US establishment, Kennedy was a Catholic upstart and parvenu with profoundly heretical notions on the central issues of the time - peace, war, and profit. Our knowledge of Greer's career is scant. If you have a full resume, please produce it.

They never do, Tim, but, hell, you've never let it deter you in the past, so why stop now!

Bill's familiar message: Don't listen to the eyewitnesses, they were there, listen to Miller - I wasn't! Note, no claim that the eyewitnesses didn't offer the claims I've quoted, just a blank recourse to ...a yes, a lot of fake films, with no proper provenances, or chains of possession, and entirely inconsistent accounts of their early durations and contents, not least from their alleged takers. To state the obvious - this isn't evidence, but its negation. Your position is "common sense"? Come, come, Bill, I fear you flatter yourself. She was in just a marvellous position to launch a counter-attack: The guys who had just blown her husband's brains out were guarding her children; she was armed with very sharp bits of his skull; and she was utterly unshocked by what had just occurred. Yup, in a prime state personally to roll back the coup.

In other threads on this forum, I've come across claims that Greer et al were little more than village idiots unburdened by a day's training. Nothing could be further from the truth, as common sense would suggest. Here's a useful footnote from chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination, of Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974):

I keep a jar handy next to the computer. You never know when it might prove useful. Let me see. These are "slight variations": A sharp left veer to the south curb of Elm; a stop; shooting; SS men swarming on the presidential limo? All this - and more - from the eyewitness testimony, but mysteriously absent from the films. "Slight variations"? I "hallucinated" the quotations above? Really? Me and the peeps who compiled both the Report and the Hearings volumes? The FBI guys who took down the statements? Which of course explains the FBI's decision to inverview both men in the White House on 27 November and, as Lifton long ago noted, set down a physical description of Greer. But not, admittedly, his right foot. More hallucinations, I suspose:

Not sure that's true, Peter... And as for this objection... If you've seen Jackie's full testimony, you're a very privileged soul. Care to share its location(s)? JC thought so much of the SS he wouldn't let it near him in 1980. Actions speak louder than words. As for members of the US elite engaging in self-censorship, that's agreeably easy to demonstrate. The film record's a rank fake, with one important exception. There's a spaceship at my disposal, don't you know, so distance is no object. And after visiting Planet Knoll (north & south poles), I can confirm there's not a sign of intelligent life...

It's a full life being an advocate of an in-car shooting, what with locating our mandatory turquoise track-suits, coming to terms with our divinity, fighting the good fight against artfully disguised elite lizards etc. Worst of all, we have to cope with the shame of having read the testimony of some of the closest and/or best-placed eyewitnesses - and taken it seriously! No wonder we struggle for credibility. Ah, well, such is life, and I have a UFO to catch - straight to the newsagents, please, Alien Cooper... 1.Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine): Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots? Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294. 2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass): Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?” Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225. 3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176. 4. Officer E. L. Boone (policeman, corner of Main and Houston Streets):" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508. 5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he “saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467. 6. Jack Franzen: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile,” 22WCH840. 7. Mrs. Jack Franzen: “Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile,” 24WCH525. 7. Clint Hill (on the second shot, the fatal one to the head): “It was as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object," 2WCH144. 8. James Altgens: “The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

JOHN J. McCLOY, letter to fellow-Philadelphian George Wharton Pepper at the end of WWII: Kai Bird. The Chairman: John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p.661. JOHN F. KENNEDY, speech delivered at the American University in Washington, 10 June 1963: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...ity06101963.htm

That piece of diction – “radicals” – lingers. Could it be that Mellen wishes to suggest to her readers that RFK, had he won the presidency in ’68, would have hunted down domestic “radicals” like, well, Mellen herself? But we need not linger on mere suspicion of hysterical and self-dramatising anti-RFK propaganda when we have such clear proof of same: Did RFK really reveal any such plan – to fill Vietnam with “death squads,” no less - to Ellsberg? If so, why is it missing from Ellsberg’s first version of his contacts with, and impressions of, RFK? It certainly isn’t anywhere in an article on the subject which preceded Ellsberg’s book-memoir by thirty years: Jan Wenner, “Dan Ellsberg: Interview, part II,” Rolling Stone, 6 December 1973, pp.16-25. On the contrary, Ellsberg became increasingly impressed with RFK (p.24): “The picture that people had of him, that he was purely an opportunist on the War – nailing down a particular position so as to oppose Johnson – I felt was exactly the opposite of the truth. That he cared very deeply about the War and that, often – too often – he compromised that feeling for political tactics. But I don’t doubt the sincerity of his feelings, and that drew me to him very strongly.” Of course, the obvious rejoinder to this charge of an obsession with the mere acquisition of power is what on earth could RFK achieve without it? One group certainly did not share the view of RFK here propounded by Mellen – the people who killed him, as Mellen herself, with that sure mastery of logic which so disfigures her Garrison book, proceeds to make clear in her very next paragraph: A second group – let us here assume there were no links with the first - doubtless perplexed by Mellon’s version of JFK’s policies in Laos would appear to be the very CIA/Special Forces men running the actual death squads there in 1961-62. Both the Agency and Military Assistance Advisory Group personnel there “scarcely hid their disapproval” of the Kennedy-backed peace negotiation and worked actively to “subvert it.” (1) The opposition became so naked that in mid-November 1961 Brigadier Andrew Boyle, commander of the US military “adviser” contingent in Laos, was obliged to threaten “that any enlisted man or officer who violated” his order to desist from public dissent to the Kennedy White House policy “would be returned immediately to the United States with an official reprimand and might face further disciplinary action.” (2) A New York Times editorial at the end of the month lamented that “American policy in Laos has often suffered from conflicting action by agents of different branches of the United States Government. In Vientiane the embassy has at times pursued one program, Pentagon men and Central Intelligence operatives still another.” (3) In summary, Mellen’s game-plan is the familiar one – offer revelations about the CIA to gain credibility, then lavish the banked credit on a depressingly familiar assortment of preposterous inversions & crude smears. (1) Don A. Schanche, “Have We Lost Southeast Asia?,” Saturday Evening Post, 7 April 1962, p.88. (2) Jacques Nevard, “US Bars Carping By Aides In Laos,” The New York Times, 29 November 1961, p.8. (3) Editorial, “Untogetherness in Laos,” The New York Times, 30 November 1961, p.

William F. Buckley, Jr. - not the National Review, Tim, do keep up - was out of the loop? An outrageous proposition! And no complaints about Buckley's ghastly invocation of the Holocaust in this context? Perhaps you've been taking lessons from the ADL. Paul

Thought it might be useful to revisit the immediate response of a CIA journo with undoubted connections to the upper levels of the plot. Worth noting before proceeding that Buckley's National Review did bother to blame Moscow for the CIA-directed coup attempt in Saigon in November 1960. "Pogrom"? "Genocidal"? Interesting to note how early the American elite right took up the Holocaust as a shield for its crimes.

A revolution under the guise of a covert restoration of the status quo ante.

In his 1961 book, Secret Service Chief, ostensibly co-written with Leonard Wallace Robinson, recently retired Secret Service head U.E. Baughman offered a plausible picture of the background to his decision to retire: But was it as simple – not to mention schmaltzy and hackneyed - as described? There is ground for scepticism. One source of such doubt comprises a UPI-sourced piece which appeared in the NYT in late January 1961. It reported the retirement of the deputy chief of the SS, Russell Daniel, 54, “an agent of thirty one years” who “could have become Chief of the Secret Service had he not elected to retire…It was learned that the chief, U.E. Baughman, had considered retiring in favor of Mr. Daniel.Now Mr. Baughman plans to remain head of the service for three or four years” (UPI, “Secret Service Shifts,” NYT, 26 January 1961, p.20). Baughman was only 56. Nor was this the only ground. As we have seen above, Baughman dated his day of decision to May 1961. Yet it was to take until late July for the news to reach the press, at minimum, then, nearly two full months: “Chief of Secret Service to Retire Next Month,” NYT, 25 July 1961, p.17. According to this report, Baughman possessed “no plans to seek another job,” but was now “thinking about writing a book about his career.” (The Washington Post report repeated the line that Baughman “had no plans for private employment at the moment,” but failed to record Baughman’s new-found literary ambitions.) Why such an apparently lengthy delay between decision and public announcement? Was there an event or development which occurred in the intervening period that it was felt better to gloss over? The suspicion that the book version of the circumstances surrounding Baughman’s decision to retire is not entirely reliable or candid is reinforced by a report which appeared in the NYT in late August 1961. According to the NYT’s Joseph Loftus, reporting on the approval given to Baughman to keep his guns in retirement, the latter had “received several job offers. Since he was only 56, he would surprise no one if he started a new career” (“Baughman able to keep guns,” NYT, 20 August 1961, p.58). Surprise no one, that is, except the authors of a book called Secret Service Chief. Memory plays tricks, of course, and it is not my attention to spatchcock Baughman into the ranks of the conspirators. To the contrary, it was likely because he was of pre-war Cold War vintage and honest that he was subject to a little inducement to help sway his decision. What form could such an inducement have taken? How to tip to the balance for retirement – let us concede, as the evidence suggests, the disposition existed - without arousing suspicion? We have already seen the answer. Memoirs as CIA pay-off, buy-out, &/or syke-warfare. In Gavan McCormack’s contribution, “Burchett’s Thirty Years’ War,” to the Ben Kiernan-edited Burchett Reporting the Other Side of the World, 1939-1983 (London: Quartet Books, 1986), there is a rare mention of a classic CIA gambit (p.180): The company which took Secret Service Chief was Random House, a publishing house characterised by Christopher Story, the editor of Soviet Analyst and a man with excellent connections in the Anglosphere spookocracy, as a veritable “front for the Central Intelligence Agency” (Volume 29, Numbers 1-2, (May-June 2004), p. 17). Serialisation rights were quickly arranged with none other than the Washington Post, a Mockingbird bastion par excellence, which duly offered ten instalments beginning Christmas 1961. The book had four stand-out utilities to the CIA. For the moment, I confine myself to two, both of which featured in the WAPo extracts from the book. First, it promulgated the establishment fiction that all previous would-be, not to mention actual, presidential assassins had been “lone-nuts,” an assertion hammered home. Second, and most unsubtly of all, the threat posed by “a good marksman with a high-powered telescopic rifle” was flagged. This latter theme was to remain a staple of the genre: In a lengthy profile of Baughman’s replacement, James Rowley, by Emile C. Schurmacher published in True magazine – the edition dated 22 November 1963 – only the identity of the originator of the fear had been changed (Emile C. Schurmacher, “The Man Who Protects the President,” True, 22 November 1963, pp.12-15, 73-79). This was a deliberate and systematic red-herring. It was to work triumphantly.

Will do - I got it on inter-library loan, got side-tracked, then skimmed it in indecent haste to avoid the fiscal hammering that comes with late return. From what you say, I missed a trick. Ta for the tip. Agreed - Richardson was essentially a front-man/blind for the more active players until the late August attempted coup, when the CIA institutionally moved into overt opposition to a negotiated settlement. In this, the August '63 coup followed the model established by the November 1960 effort. There, too, the station chief was not central to the attempt. So from where was control exercised? Stategically, it had to be Washington (or rather its spookiest suburb) for the post-Dallas changes to US policy in Vietnam had to be readied in advance for integration into the broader post-Dallas narrative. Tactically? That would have to be Saigon -USOM would be my favoured guess. Paul

UPI (London), “World Press Raises Doubts About Assassination Case,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 26 November 1963, p.4A: …The Milan newspaper Corriere Lombardo…referred to a movie of the actual shooting and said it showed that “not more than five seconds elapsed from the moment Kennedy was shot and the moment his car sped away.”

Dupe deleted.

Charles, A fascinating proposal, and one I may well take up at a future date. For the moment, however, an observation and two inferences from it. Consider again the nature of the damage to the Merc. The front of the car bore a pronounced dent at the mid-front, to the extent that the wings of the car appeared to have curved round the impediment. It had clearly struck the column head on, not on either wing; and it was thus anything but a glancing blow. My first inference from that reinforces both my own aforementioned viewing, early on the Sunday morning on BBC TV, of footage showing the car upside down, and its occupants, including Diana, still in it; and the eyewitness testimony quoted in that same day’s newspapers confirming same: A head on collision at great speed would likely cause the car, especially such a heavy one, to flip over. My second: The fact that the Merc hit the pillar head on is powerfully suggestive that the driver was NOT in control of the vehicle. Why? Because the instinct to turn away from the looming obstacle is universal, universally powerful, and incredibly rapid. Even if Paul could not avoid it entirely, as was perhaps the case, one would confidently expect to see damage to one side or the other of the car’s front. Unless, that is, we are to believe that Monsieur Paul did not have time to make any instinctive reaction at all; or was either a hypno-programmed assassin, or else hopelessly drunk. I’ve seen no reliable evidence for the Manchurian Candidate chauffeur hypothesis, or for his being steaming drunk. And the fact that the pillar struck was not right at the tunnel’s entrance leaves me with little option but to rule this objection unlikely. Paul