Mike Williams

Then of course rather than offering an "I would say" opinion, you are free to do the work, and show us that I am incorrect. Surely if a 1st year physics student could refute what I have posted, then you should be able to without issue....right? "Up around"? Are you kidding me? The head moves forward less than 3" and while I would agree that this is an appropriate movement for a rear entering bullet, it certainly reflects no where near 50% of the energy. (clearly showing you struggle with the difference between foot/lbs (energy) and foot/lbs (force). In the table I posted above, we can see that the bullet hits with 1400-1500 ft lbs energy. If 50% of that is transferred we are looking at 700-750 ft.lbs. 7 times greater than a the average human punch. You really think this will move the head forward less than 3 inches? No bullet, in any way shape or form ever transfers ALL the energy. It is an impossibility, and a remark that shows your knowledge of the subject matter is limited Jim. For one, energy is expended in the form of heat. For another energy is consumed by the very fragmentation of the projectile. Even bullets that stay in the target do not transfer all their energy to the target. Additionally there is no indication whatsoever of a frangible bullet. This myth was put down years ago. ""Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger weapons."

Jim, Almost. There is no doubt that the pressure inside the head would be more significant with the initial shot. However, much of this energy was consumed in breaking apart the skull, something an alleged second shot would not have to do. This having been said, a second shot would be less restrained, and should show as much, if not more release of ejecta, because the ejecta at this point is unrestrained by the skull. Below is an example of unrestrained blood ejecta. Note that the back spatter in this instance is text book, as is the larger in quantity and velocity forward spatter. Something additional to consider. Blood is a liquid. Brain mass is rather gelatinous, and considered near liquid as well. As such they share a unique quality, they do not compress very much at all. If they do not compress, then they do not expand much either (the whole equal and opposite thing at work again) If they do not expand significantly, then their ability to create an "explosion" is very limited. The common analogy would be water pipes freezing. They do not explode, they simply crack open. Dynamite, with its confined and rapidly expanding gas explodes, simply because the gas has the ability to expand greatly, and rapidly. So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices: 1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has every claimed, or 2) To abandon the second frontal head shot scenario, something I might add that even Cyril Wecht can not support. I have several ballistics articles on my webpage should you desire the read. www.jfkballistics.com/articles.html

I have a problem with the Harris presentation. If the large amount of brain, blood and bone shot backward is from the second shot, why don't we see a backwards spray in the extant Z-film? Harris take great pains to show the defect in Z-337, but no corresponding ejecta towards the rear. Did I miss his explanation? Confused in Pasadena, Daniel Please forgive my responding to my own post, but no one responded to my question, so I shall ask it again. Harris is very careful to state that no debris is exiting the back of the head in the initial head shot at 313. This is what one sees on the extant film, and verified, he says, by careful analysis. So then he allows there is a second shot to the head which is then the source of all the backwards/left blood and brains that would account for the mess on the trunk, Hargis etc. The trouble is, I see no such ejecta when Harris says the second shot occurred. Why is that? Someone please please please enlighten, and thanks in advance. Daniel Daniel, The explanation is simple. There was no second head shot. For one, the energy required to move the head back in the fashion we see, is impossible from a bullet. In example: As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3% So 1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs. With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target? 37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs. How would we achieve this? An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle. So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs. 7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle. so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm..... how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs so lets grab 5 of those we are now at 36,804 ft lbs. damn still short......by......196 ft lbs! so lets go back shopping and get...... 1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs.... So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with: 2-.50 cals 2-.308cals 5-.45 acp's 1-.22 cal and a carcano all at the same time. really now......... Once one realizes that this rearward movement can not be attributed to a bullet, then things become much easier to reason. We do know that there was blood and brain matter forward of the target, so much so that is was on the inside of the windshield, the outside of the windshield, and ALL the way up to the hood ornament of the limo. Furthermore, it had to oppose a 12-15 mph headwind to get there! Unless one can claim that for a 60 second period on 11/22/63 the laws of physics were suspended, then there is no survivable claim that there was a second frontal head shot. It really boils down to equal and opposite reactions. A large blood cloud emitted from the front, attributed to a rear entering bullet should, and would be replicated from the rear, if a front entering bullet had exited the back of the head. Mike

JFK Assassination Truth ? ? ? ahh geez, another feeble attempt to prop up the Single Bullet Theory (SBT)... you sell buttered popcorn too, Sgt Mikey? At least we dont claim our films are altered David! How did you like the witness page format? That is after all what the post is about. I know that whole actually talking about assassination related material is not your "thing".

Just finished adding a new section to my website. www.jfkballistics.com From the home page, click witness page on the right. I have been adding all the witness testimony in an easy to copy and paste format. Something else that I have been doing, is embedding photos of the Commission Exhibits as they are introduced, rather than have them in another volume. I will be adding testimony regularly, and hope to accumulate videos and other items associated with each witness. I hope this is of some use. Mike

Dean, I know over the years people have gone back and forth over the hole in the windshield. I looked at this using the Parkland photos, which obviously were taken before anyone could have switched anything. Here is a link to the article I wrote sometime ago. http://www.jfkballistics.com/AHoleInOne.html I find that this work, in conjunction with the evidence that there was lead only, on the inside of the crack, proves pretty reasonably that there was no hole, and just a crack in the glass. The way that I see it, to proclaim there was a hole, is to say that the Parkland photos are doctored, and I just do not buy that. No disrespect towards anyone, but to this day I have yet to see any credible expert proclaim any of the photos or films have been altered. Something else to consider, is that this minor defect in the glass is not to difficult to spot in the photos. A gross defect in the glass would stick out like a sore thumb. We just do not see that. I really have to conclude that there was no hole. FWIW, Mike

Just a quick question here. According to the WC the very first shot is not possible until frame 210 of the Z film. This is because, by their estimation, a live oak tree blocks the view from the sixth floor window. They do however contend that a single frame 186 does allow a shooter a shot, for a fleeting instant. What is to be made of this? I am speaking of course about the availability of a shot from the 6th floor window.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure. This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!" Or did Lambert write that too? Michael, Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea? I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said. IS there a problem with me copying and pasting? I think that Mike Hogan makes a good point. Here's my take: Mike Williams' bias clearly appeared (past tense) to be strongly anti-Garrison at the beginning of this thread. He has since backed off, ever so slightly, from pushing that original pursuit. As I understand it, he is weighing new evidence and seeking more. If true, perhaps progress is being made here after all. Greg, Why am I not surprised that you hit the nail on the head? I asked for further information, and am reading each post and considering its implications. I have to be completely honest here and say that Jimmy D is someone who I find marginal in the credibility dept, you however I find far more credible. If you have reasons to believe that this is just foolishness, I have to give that great weight.

YES I meant LN lol. It was amazing at how much of the assassination we do agree on. I look forward to further discussions, call anytime my friend. But beware some think I am a bile spitting demon lol.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure. This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!" Or did Lambert write that too? Michael, Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea? I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said. IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

Dean, Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more. By the way was great to finally chat on the phone last night, your a great guy, and I look forward to more conversations. This is an amazing and complex case, yes? 10 more minutes you would have been a CT ahahahahahahahahahah!

Sure, Jim. Back this up "your xxxxx forum" Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009. Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts. He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts. I signed up at Duncan McRae's forum and got kicked off for posting defense of Madeleine Duncan Brown over HERE at Education Forum. I didn't violate the rules of any forum - certainly not his as I rarely posted there - McRae just arbitrarily kicked me off his board for political reasons. I guess I must be too potent in my presentation of the facts.... Hey, who can't handle the truth?

Jim, What a crock. I would love for this wound ballistics expert to explain how a fragment of the bullet went into the right lung, and yet the parietal pleura is not ruptured! Here is a clue, it is impossible. The Parietal Pleura is the outer layer in the pleura cavity. If a bullet fragment entered this area it would have to puncture this layer. Period. Further there is no evidence what do ever of a blow out in the back of the head. Even if there were, and with a marginal understanding of physics and Pascals law one could quickly conclude the result. Frankly Jim, you are as incorrect about this, as you are just about anything else.

Sure, Jim. Back this up "your xxxxx forum" Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009. Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts. He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts. You're not all right in the head, are you? I can't believe someone like you was ever given a gun on purpose. Great forum? Facts? Who from? Brian Walker? The biggest imbecile that has ever managed to survive three trimesters? Bill Brown? Who repeatedly asks the same idiotic questions over and over and over again in some vain hope that he will outlast the "debate" through others simply giving in to his stamina? Paul May? Who writes under dozens of aliases and has in the past accused other researchers of child molestation (the way you have today with Jim Garrison) and like his hero John McAdams? Mark Henceroth? Another idiot who won't put his real name to his thoughts and ideas, and has started some incredibly valuable and mature threads with titles such as "Should all CT's be executed as being un-American?" Ross Lidell? Who starts about 10 threads a day and calls them things like "Where was Oswald going after the Theater?", "Oswald's smirk, sign of a maniac?", "Yes or No, would the CT's let Oswald go from custody?" And you. The incredible Mike Williams. Who acts like a five year old each and every day. Who scuppers any chance of reasonable discussion and debate because you'd prefer to act like a child. You're top dog over there Mike, and rightly so. Out of a group of tossers, there is always one tosser who is bigger and messier than the rest. The Alpha-male toss pot, Mike Williams. Now piss-off back to your haven where you can contribute to JFK research by replying to and applauding some of the mentally healthy people over there who claim that not supporting the "official view" is unpatriotic and un-American and who once told me that it was "obvious that I hate America." So I suppose this means you can not refute one single word I posted. Thanks Lee. Just the kind of answer I expected from an over inflated pompous ass such as yourself. Lifton has you nailed. Maybe one day when you manage to finish reading a book you'll be able to post your own ideas and thoughts? Maybe you and Robert Morrow can start a night school class on "How to not stop reading until you come to the last page." Lifton sure does. He has me completely nailed. I'm glad you're backing him. Maybe he'll nail me some more over the coming weeks once he presents some evidence and answers one of the 200 questions he's been asked? In fact, I think he's at Home Depot right now stocking up. Refute one single word you posted? What the hell for? It's already been refuted. I consider you a waste of space bullet-boy and Jim was too considerate to you by actually offering you his time. Read The Assassinations or Destiny Betrayed and you may get up to speed on what Garrison was up against. What's that? You'll never read them because the editor and author is a "kook"? Oh I see. Well how about Let Justice Be Done by Bill Davey? What's that? He's a "kook" as well? Well how about A Farewell to Justice by Joan Mellen? Another "kook" eh? Oh dear. How about Garrison's own two books? No? Why would you want to read them? How about some of the ARRB documents? Not got time, eh? Too busy still trying to sell the SBT? Just keep pretending you're interested in history. And I'm so glad you didn't try to defend the muppets you associate with. Keep on tossing, Mike. You're the best. Well Lee, Since you dont have anything productive to add, I am not at all concerned that I should not hear from you on this subject again. Please, by all means, feel more than free not to waste anymore time on me. To the rest of you who replied with things to consider, I appreciate your time and effort and will certainly be considering these things.

Will Do Jack. I have read this before, but always good to refresh! Thanks Mike

Sure, Jim. Back this up "your xxxxx forum" Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009. Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts. He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts. You're not all right in the head, are you? I can't believe someone like you was ever given a gun on purpose. Great forum? Facts? Who from? Brian Walker? The biggest imbecile that has ever managed to survive three trimesters? Bill Brown? Who repeatedly asks the same idiotic questions over and over and over again in some vain hope that he will outlast the "debate" through others simply giving in to his stamina? Paul May? Who writes under dozens of aliases and has in the past accused other researchers of child molestation (the way you have today with Jim Garrison) and like his hero John McAdams? Mark Henceroth? Another idiot who won't put his real name to his thoughts and ideas, and has started some incredibly valuable and mature threads with titles such as "Should all CT's be executed as being un-American?" Ross Lidell? Who starts about 10 threads a day and calls them things like "Where was Oswald going after the Theater?", "Oswald's smirk, sign of a maniac?", "Yes or No, would the CT's let Oswald go from custody?" And you. The incredible Mike Williams. Who acts like a five year old each and every day. Who scuppers any chance of reasonable discussion and debate because you'd prefer to act like a child. You're top dog over there Mike, and rightly so. Out of a group of tossers, there is always one tosser who is bigger and messier than the rest. The Alpha-male toss pot, Mike Williams. Now piss-off back to your haven where you can contribute to JFK research by replying to and applauding some of the mentally healthy people over there who claim that not supporting the "official view" is unpatriotic and un-American and who once told me that it was "obvious that I hate America." So I suppose this means you can not refute one single word I posted. Thanks Lee. Just the kind of answer I expected from an over inflated pompous ass such as yourself. Lifton has you nailed.

Greg, Thank you for posting something worth thinking over, rather than just a hand out of insults. I will certainly give this some thought. That was the purpose of my post. I have for most of my time looked into the ballistics of the case, and am really looking into other areas. This is new ground for me, and your thoughtful reply was appreciated. Mike

We KNOW it was an entrance wound. The back wound was too low to be associated with the throat wound, especially given the path on the neck x-ray. Nellie Connally described JFK as grabbing his throat, and we can see him react to throat trauma in the Zap. The only Dealey Plaza back wound witness, SSA Glenn Bennett, described the back shot as separate from the first "firecracker" he heard. The back wound was probed by Humes and then Finck and no transit was found. We KNOW that JFK's back wound was too low because of the location of the bullet hole in his tucked in custom made dress shirt in the vicinity of T3. And a ton of corroborative evidence for the T3 back wound is found in the Death Certificate (signed off as "verified"), the autopsy face sheet properly filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified", also in pencil as per proper autopsy protocol), and the eyewitness statements of more than a dozen people who saw the wound. Any thing else, Duncan? Clifford so we have TWO non transiting shots that line up perfectly is that what you are actually claiming? Come on man, no one who has any clue about ballistics would ever buy such crap. Hole in back. WITH COPPER ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE JACKET. Nicked vertebra. Pneumo/hemothorax Bruised upper right lung. Nicked trachea. Exit on shirt NO COPPER EXIT nick in tie NO COPPER Clearly back to front, for anyone who has a remote clue about what they are discussing. Here is another answer. What bullet leaves an air pocket and no bullet? ALL OF THEM. Its called a secondary wound path, created by the shock wave of the bullet! This is basic elementary stuff.

Pummeled him ? And what are "common sense facts" as opposed to evidence ? McAdams tried to use an unconfirmed, unsubstantiated and unverified allegation by Palmer McBride that Oswald threatened to kill Eisenhower as "proof" that Oswald had murderous tendencies even as a teenager. He talks about it beginning at the 26:30 mark in this broadcast: www.blackopradio.com/black442a.ram He also claimed that this threat occurred "in late '57 or early '58" in New Orleans at a time when documentation shows that Oswald was in Japan. ( CE 1961 ) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0414b.htm I find it difficult to believe that a man so versed in the assassination, and so aware of FACTOIDS, as Professor McAdams is, could not have known that there was a conflict in the timeframe. Jesus Gil (aint that a funny?) What about Oswald visiting his brother and made to leave for pulling a knife? What about Oswald Threatening Ike, and Nixon? What about Oswald shooting at Walker? Oswald had epic anger issues. You can not ignore that. Several fights in the Marine Corp. Wife beater. Etc etc.

I have not posted a xxxxx thread, as you call it. Maybe the FACT that people who worked for Garrison seem to support the accusations? As for my interest in this, I have a great interest in all areas of history, this being one of the more fascinating.

Sure, Jim. Back this up "your xxxxx forum" Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009. Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts. He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

Sometimes i believe you have no control over your postings, Mike. Mhh Why is that Martin? I simply wanted others take on Garrison. Let me try to explain Mike. Excuse me to take a swing. Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere but the vast majority is anonymous. As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have. In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then on any other Forum. As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you. Here a little taster from this thread: Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard. The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me. I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know..... Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true. I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore. I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me. Martin Martin, No offense taken my friend. I only post what I find and have interest in. I simply offer my view and ask others for theirs.

And you, are an idiot I dont know why you would say that. Pat Lambert makes a pretty compelling case. Have you read he book?

In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51) In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52) Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53) In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54) The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55) The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56) "When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57) The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58) "I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59) Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60) Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61) All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions. From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks: Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public. For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness. Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!

Duncan, Exactly! The real issue here and the one they try to so desperately avoid, is how did he suffer the hemo/pneumo thorax?