David Von Pein

"For the record"..... Allow me to correct what I said earlier about a 5-foot-9 man not being able to wedge a 2-foot object under his armpit while cupping it in his hand at the same time. I'm just under 5-9, and I can ALMOST do it. It comes out to 23 inches on me. Ray Mitcham above said he's 5-9 and it came out to 24 inches on him (which I can, indeed, accept). But a 27-inch object? No way. So even staunch CTers should admit that BOTH the famous "27-inch" measurement given by Linnie Randle AND the famous "armpit & cupped in the hand" scenario painted by Buell Frazier cannot BOTH be exactly accurate.

Not if the cupped hand was held out away from the body a little bit, forcing the weighty object in the bag to lean against Oswald's shoulder for the walk into the building. (An arm and a cupped hand CAN be moved and maneuvered, you know.)

Longer? You mean SHORTER. Because there's no way that Oswald could have wedged even a two-foot object under his armpit while at the same time cupping it in his right hand. Try it yourself and measure the distance between your armpit and your cupped hand. That distance on me is about 23 inches. (I talked about that fact in my 2007 Frazier/Randle article, below.) IN OCTOBER 2007, DVP SAID.... BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV. In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony). Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate. And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand". The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath: VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?" BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body." BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?" FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side." BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past." FRAZIER -- "Yes sir." BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?" FRAZIER -- "That is true." BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?" FRAZIER -- "That is true." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.] But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?

Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim. That point being: If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR. But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this.... Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long. ....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd. Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend? In addition.... There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit: "The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier

Reprise (for CTers to ignore again).......

Linnie Mae, of course, never said the bag was exactly 38 inches long. But she did come mighty close to it on one occasion [see later discussion regarding the Bookhout report]. In the two filmed interviews I've heard with Mrs. Randle, she once said (in the 1964 David Wolper film) that Oswald's bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [see the "Linnie Mae" clip linked below].... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-in-november-re-created-scenes.html In the other filmed interview (in 1967 for CBS-TV; at the 11:14 mark in this video), Randle said the bag was "about 27 inches long". Now, both of those estimates are still quite a bit shorter than 38 inches, of course. But the 12/1/63 FBI interview I spoke of earlier is quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when Mrs. Randle was shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), she did tell Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one she saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would she have said something like that to the FBI if the bag she saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag she was shown by the FBI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I know you wouldn't trust the FBI any further than you could hurl them, but just "for the record", there's another FBI report from the day of the assassination itself, in which Mrs. Randle told the FBI's James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that's her very first approximation of the bag's size, which, of course, is by far the best estimate she ever gave as to the length of the package (IMO). And if you want to think Jim Bookhout was just making up tall tales in his 11/22/63 interview with Linnie Mae, then go right ahead and think that. It's a free country. But please don't ask me to follow you down that rabbit hole.

There is an FBI report in which Linnie Mae Randle talks about what she heard when she looked out her kitchen door on the morning of 11/22/63. That statement is in Randle's interview of December 1, 1963 [Warren Commission Document No. 7].... "...she [Mrs. Randle] turned back to the sink after hearing the car door shut." Also.... It's worth noting something else that appears in FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum's 12/1/63 interview of Buell Wesley Frazier. Quoting from Odum's FBI report [also in Commission Document No. 7]: "Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7). The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long. So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.

Absolute nonsense, Jim. You're just LOOKING for an excuse--any excuse--to dismiss portions of Buell Frazier's testimony. Frazier always maintained that he walked behind Oswald because OSWALD decided to walk ahead of him by about 50 feet. It wasn't FRAZIER'S decision to walk behind him---it was Oswald's. And in every interview I've ever seen with Frazier, he's always said that TWO things occurred after he parked his car that morning.... 1. He charged his battery. and 2. He leisurely strolled into work (behind Oswald) and as he was walking he said (in his WC testimony).... "I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he [LHO] kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there. .... I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all." Now, it's true that Frazier didn't mention anything about watching any "welders" by the railroad tracks in the above testimony, but each version of his story does contain some "watching" on the part of Frazier. And if you ask me, those two "versions" of Buell Frazier's account of his actions are mighty similar in general content --- i.e., he is slowly walking toward the TSBD and is "watching" some activity by some men in the railroad yards. Now, Jim, you don't REALLY think those two accounts of Frazier's story are a million miles apart, do you? If so, you are hereby awarded this week's "Nitpickers" trophy.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [IN OCT. 2012]: Davey, why did Shields say that Frazier told him he dropped off Oswald at the front of the TSBD that day? If so, then Frazier is lying about following him and seeing the sack under his arm. DAVID VON PEIN SAID [IN OCT. 2012]: Mr. Shields is obviously wrong, Jimmy. But you want to believe Shields, vs. believing the person (Buell Frazier) who has always stuck to his story from Day 1 about all of the stuff he did on November 22nd, including the manner in which Oswald exited the car and picked up his package out of the back seat while Frazier was charging his battery in the distant employee parking lot. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Frazier's story about following LHO into the TSBD was contradicted by Shields, who said he parked the car by himself that morning and then walked to the building alone. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's a mighty weak argument, Jim. That scenario of Buell Frazier parking the car "by himself" and walking to the building "alone" is, essentially, correct (when factoring in the fact that Oswald got out of the car first and started to walk ahead of Wesley Frazier toward the TSBD, with Frazier remaining in his car to charge the battery). Given those circumstances, a person (like Shields) might very well have thought Frazier was "alone" when he walked toward the building, with Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Because, as mentioned, essentially Frazier WAS "alone" when he walked to the building on that particular day. And Shields could have thought Frazier parked the car "alone", because Frazier did get out of the car ALONE--i.e., not at the same time as Oswald. Is this the best you've got, Jimbo? If so, it's awfully lousy, because you've also got to get around the testimony of Linnie Randle too. After all, she DID definitely see LHO [with a package!] on the morning of November 22, right? (I assume you don't think she was lying about merely SEEING Oswald that day, do you?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-111.html

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Anyone who can say that Linnie Mae Randle and Wesley Frazier are just ordinary witnesses, I mean what can you say? I don't know anyone in this case who was snapped up to a polygraph at midnight on the 22nd at the DPD. I don't know anyone who was so panic stricken that the operator could not get a reading on him. I don't know anyone who had an Enfield rifle in their house, the first rifle reported used in the assassination. I don't know any witness who the DPD tried to deliberately cover up what they did to him as they did with Frazier. I don't know any witness with who the DPD deliberately deep sixed the evidence of what happened to him to the point that it completely disappeared from the archives. I don't know any testimony in which both witnesses to one event have been impeached. And for Davey to say that... 1.) You can see anything distinguishable through those slats, 2.) You can see to the other side of the car, This is just BS, so what does DVP do, he invents testimony about "hearing the door". Utterly shameless. But par for the course with him. DAVID VON PEIN SAID [DEC. 3, 2012]: Yes, you are shameless, Jimbo. You're shamelessly trying to smear the names of two totally innocent people with your outrageous and wholly unfounded BS about Frazier and Randle being "forced" by the DPD to make up the paper bag story from whole cloth. That's a despicable theory and anyone with any common sense knows it. But, of course, it's par for the DiEugenio course, because Jimmy D. couldn't live with the thought that Lee Oswald took that rifle into work with him on 11/22/63 (as the ludicrous 2010 quote shown below amply demonstrates). "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- J. DiEugenio; Jan. 14, 2010 Yeah, right. As if all the bullets, shells, fragments, guns, fingerprints, fibers, paper bag, the Tippit murder, and Oswald's own actions weren't going to be nearly enough to hang Oswald. Jimbo's out to lunch. And all of DiEugenio's other concerns melt away like butter on just-popped popcorn when evaluated in anything close to a reasonable way. E.G.: Frazier was scared stiff. So what? Wouldn't you be too, given the circumstances? Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened? The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier. William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated. I can just hear you conspiracy clowns balking and complaining if Frazier and Mr. Randle HADN'T been investigated. You'd be crying: "Why were they and their rifles totally ignored?" But when they (and their rifles) ARE investigated by the authorities, you still want to complain that THAT action is sinister and suspicious too. There's no pleasing a conspiracy hound. Is there, Jimmy? More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Why was the bag not photographed in situ? And why does the bag in evidence not match the one the Fraziers said they saw? DAVID VON PEIN SAID [OCT. 2012]: Even though no picture of the bag was taken by the DPD that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are: L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97] Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144] J.C. Day [4 H 267] Marvin Johnson [7 H 103] It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy [theorists] like DiEugenio feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town. What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?

BUD SAID: Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen this [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car], David? DAVID VON PEIN SAID [OCT. 21, 2009]: I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of space between the slats in the carport (as seen in the photo below): I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly HEARD more than she SAW. I.E., She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross the street (Oswald). Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in the car. So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify in the following manner: "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door."

Those pictures were taken as part of an FBI booklet of photos called "Paine And Randle Homes", which became Warren Commission Document No. 497. Here are some of my arguments regarding the topics of "Linnie Mae Randle & The Paper Bag".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-746.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-79.html#Linnie-Randle http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html#Linnie-Mae-Randle-And-The-Package http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Untrue. (In the USA anyway.)

Book Website....

And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-) If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever. Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?

Thanks for the additional information, David L. As I said, the apparent inconsistent statements from Dr. Stewart that I talked about above don't necessarily mean anything at all when it comes to the things Dr. Perry supposedly said to Stewart about the throat wound. But I think those contradictory accounts are kind of interesting nevertheless. Since you say you have Dr. Stewart on film saying he was never in Trauma Room 1 with JFK, then it's got to make you scratch your head a little bit (right?) when you see alleged statements being attributed to the same man (David Stewart) which say exactly the opposite (e.g., the Dolan radio interview of 4/10/67 and the quotes that evidently appear in one of Harold Weisberg's books). Also.... I find this comment you made quite interesting (and humorous): "Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. .... Groden agreed." -- DSL And even with such a rigid agreement in place, what does Groden decide to do in 1989 in front of two people (David Lifton and Pat Valentino)? Groden decides that 12 years of living up to that verbal agreement with Dr. Perry was more than enough---so he decides to violate the agreement and spill his guts about what Malcolm Perry told him in 1977. (Nice guy, that Bob Groden, huh?) ~smirk~

FWIW / BTW / FYI.... I feel compelled to add the following information to this discussion regarding Parkland Hospital's Dr. David Stewart, mainly because of the fact that when David Lifton first mentioned the name of a "Dr. Stewart" earlier in this forum discussion, my initial reaction upon seeing that name in print was, "Who in the world is Dr. Dave Stewart? I don't think I've ever heard of him before. And I can't seem to recall any of the other Parkland doctors talk about him in the past either." And that was my reaction, even though, of course, I had already seen Vincent Bugliosi's one and only reference to Dr. Stewart in Vince's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" [see image below]. But since it was a very brief—and singular—reference that Bugliosi made to Stewart in "RH", I had totally forgotten about it.... Click to enlarge.... -------------------------------------------------- There's also this article that appeared in The Milwaukee Sentinel on January 30, 1967, which deals (in part) with "Dr. W. David Stewart". It would seem, based on that 1967 article, that Stewart's main function on 11/22/63 at Parkland was to deal with Governor Connally's injuries, not JFK's. And the most interesting thing that I found today [March 9, 2018] concerning Dr. Stewart comes in the form of a written review that Stewart himself wrote in May of 2006 at Amazon.com for Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book. In that review, Dr. Stewart, in effect, admits that he himself was not present in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland with President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Here's what Stewart said: "Chuck Crenshaw was a friend of mine at Parkland Hospital. We both were there at the time of the assassination. We were both residents in general surgery. He was in the trauma room with Kennedy. My only criticism with his book is in his exaggeration of his role. The facts he related were identical to those of all the other physicians who were in attendance." -- Dr. David Stewart; May 16, 2006 I think it's pretty clear that when Stewart said "He was in the trauma room with Kennedy", he was indicating that Dr. Crenshaw WAS in the Emergency Room with JFK, but Stewart himself was not there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the above information necessarily has to mean anything at all with respect to the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry allegedly said to Dr. Stewart in the days that followed the assassination; but I think the credibility of Dr. Stewart on certain issues relating to JFK's death could certainly be called into question, particularly the things Stewart allegedly told radio host Joe Dolan on April 10, 1967, none of which do we find in Stewart's own 2006 written remarks that I highlighted above.

DAVID LIFTON SAID (IN THIS 2011 EDUCATION FORUM DISCUSSION): The purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President...but to kill the man AND to get away with it. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: So the plotters did everything in their power to complicate the shooting and the plot to the Nth degree to make sure it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the "All Shots Came From The Front" plot to stay a secret. Ya gotta love the backward logic of David S. Lifton. In addition.... The following hunk of logic never occurs to the conspiracy theorists who want to believe that everything connected to Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases is phony and fake: If the whole rifle transaction was phony from the get-go, then why wouldn't the plotters who cooked up the scheme have made sure that the rifle's length MATCHED the ad from the magazine from which it was ordered? In a truly "fake" and made-up-from-whole-cloth scenario regarding the rifle, would the conspirators have wanted to have a mis-match of rifle lengths so that the conspiracy mongers could now say what they are saying today? -- i.e., "Look! The C2766 rifle is the wrong length!" This is just one more example (among dozens) of the built-in idiocy of the so-called "patsy framers" in this case. Everything is supposedly "manufactured" and planted ALL THROUGHOUT THE CASE to make it look as though Oswald did certain things and bought certain things and shot certain people -- but the retarded plotters apparently didn't know their asses from the hole in JFK's cranium. More....

Thanks, Micah. For the record.... I just now took a photo of pages 76 and 77 of Robert Groden's book "The Killing Of A President" [see below], and although a "1979 interview" with Dr. Perry is mentioned on Page 77, there is nothing in that brief section of text that says anything about Perry saying he left JFK's throat wound "inviolate", nor is there anything mentioned there about the trach wound looking "neater" than the wound seen in the autopsy photos. (That "neater" info must have come from Vincent Palamara's other listed source—"BE", p. 706—because it sure didn't come from "TKOAP", p. 77.) Also (FWIW) .... Palamara probably has the date of that interview incorrect. From what I gather from Mr. Lifton in this discussion, that interview took place in 1977, not '79. (But maybe there was a second Groden/Perry interview in '79 too. ~shrug~) Moreover, just as I quoted previously, Groden, on Page 76 of TKOAP [top left], positively endorses the idea that Dr. Perry did, indeed, cut through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat. And, as we can see on the two book pages below, the notion of Dr. Perry cutting through the bullet hole in JFK's neck is endorsed by Groden a total of three separate times in the text seen on pages 76 and 77 of his 1993 publication.... Click to enlarge to 2048 px....

Thank you, David Lifton, for yet another very detailed and interesting response [via your post of March 6 at the bottom of Page 28 of this thread]. The things you have said about Robert Groden's possible reason(s) for not wanting to include in his book (TKOAP) the things that Dr. Perry allegedly told him in 1977 do make some degree of sense to me, but it's still a bit difficult for me to believe that a major conspiracy author like Bob Groden would have been willing to just ignore a series of allegedly contradictory statements being made by one of the doctors who had his hands on President Kennedy in the emergency room in Dallas. Because even if Mr. Groden was not a believer in your "Body Alteration" theory, I would think he still could have found a way to utilize Dr. Perry's "bombshell" 1977 statements to his advantage in order to promote the two main issues that Groden advocates --- "conspiracy" and "cover-up". Instead, Groden just decided to drop the whole matter and sweep Perry's statements (which are statements that Perry supposedly made to Groden in person) under the rug?!? That seems very unlikely, in my opinion.* * I'm not saying your explanation for Groden's reticence is totally wrong, but knowing of Mr. Groden's passion for spreading the "conspiracy" word (as I do), Bob's total silence in his 1993 book concerning this tracheotomy bombshell seems mighty strange to me. David L., I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on various matters concerning the JFK case this week. And these discussions have provided some excellent additional material for my own archives of "JFK Assassination Arguments" at my website. So I thank you, DSL, for that. But I have to also say that the many things you have said in this discussion have not caused me to be swayed a single bit into believing in any kind of "conspiracy" or "cover-up" or "alteration of videotapes" relating to Dr. Perry or any other part of the investigation into John F. Kennedy's murder. (But I'm sure that doesn't come as much of a shock to you.) :-) Yes, there's an apparent discrepancy with respect to some of the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry said to various people over the years concerning the tracheotomy procedure that Perry performed on President Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital in Dallas on 11/22/63. I cannot deny that discrepancy. But I also have a difficult time believing that if Dr. Perry was so committed to telling such blatant lies to the public regarding the details surrounding the tracheotomy (e.g., the "lies" you think he told to the Warren Commission, the ARRB, and to the CBS-TV audience in 1967), then I have to ask myself: Why on Earth would this alleged l-i-a-r be willing to tell multiple people—including AUTHOR Robert J. Groden!—something totally different from what he had said (i.e., lied about) numerous times in public and in his Warren Commission testimony? Didn't he know that Groden was a WRITER OF BOOKS on the JFK assassination? And didn't Perry know that his "confession" (so to speak) about leaving the wound "inviolate" would likely end up being printed somewhere, and that such a "confession" would be totally at odds with what he told the Warren Commission and CBS News years earlier? In other words, it's my opinion (which you might regard as silly as all get out) that even with such "discrepancies" existing in the record when comparing Dr. Perry's public vs. private statements, there MUST be, in my view, an explanation that can reconcile those discrepancies without having to resort to this conclusion: Dr. Perry lied. As my very good friend and fellow "LNer" Jean Davison said (which is one of many “Common Sense” quotes by Jean that I have archived over the last several years): "Although the solutions proposed by [David] Lifton and [Michael] Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based on unexplained discrepancies in the record. .... Alternative explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little attention, if any." -- Jean Davison; Pages 274-275 of "Oswald's Game" (1983) In summary.... I enjoy discussing the JFK case with David S. Lifton. It's just a shame that all of that writing talent, and all of that detailed knowledge about the JFK case, and all of that research skill, and all of that decades worth of effort on the part of Mr. Lifton has been so misdirected and misguided (IMO). For, I ask with all sincerity, how is a reasonable human being supposed to take seriously a person who says things like this to them?: "You might want to pick up and reread those sections of 'Best Evidence' which deal with the design of the sophisticated strategic deception which, I believe, was used in conjunction with the Kennedy assassination, in order to hide the true source of the shots, and point a false evidentiary vector in the direction of the so-called “sniper’s nest”. .... That is what Chapter 14, titled “Trajectory Reversal”, is all about. It is not titled “Strategic Deception.” Rather, it is titled “Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception” and I have no doubt it will stand the test of time. Long after Mr. Bugliosi's tome is viewed as an anachronism, the last hurrah of someone trying to defend the “Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself” thesis, “Trajectory Reversal” will be properly viewed (i.e., ultimately recognized) as the genuine blueprint for a strategic deception utilized in connection with the Dallas shooting, and the best description of what actually happened. (Which it is.) It is why the media reported one thing, whereas the President’s body provided evidence of something quite different." -- David S. Lifton; March 6, 2011 "If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." --David S. Lifton; May 4, 2013 "There was an attempt to alter the audio on that tape [of the 1967 CBS News program]. A clumsy attempt, which resulted in a tape (at that point) where Perry's lip movements are clearly out of sync with the audio track." -- David S. Lifton; March 2, 2018 The above quotes provide just three examples (among many) of the type of highly improbable and bizarre theories that Mr. Lifton has endorsed since the mid-1960s. And in order for me to place my faith (or belief) in either of those theories—particularly the first one—I would have no choice but to toss all of my common sense out the nearest window. Here's what I said five years ago: "The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case." -- David Von Pein; May 4, 2013 The late Vincent Bugliosi summed things up pretty well too, when he said this: "One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 1057 and 1066 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)

Question for David Lifton.... Why do you think it is that Robert Groden chose not to write a single word in his 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" about the bombshell revelations that Dr. Malcolm Perry supposedly revealed to him in 1977? According to the things I'm reading in this discussion, Perry told Groden in 1977 multiple things that should make a dedicated conspiracy believer like Robert Groden turn cartwheels over --- e.g., Perry saying he didn't cut through JFK's throat wound at all, plus the shaking of Perry's head from side to side in disgust as he was shown the Stare of Death autopsy photo, with Perry (allegedly) saying the wound in the photograph didn't look like the tracheotomy incision he made on the President's body on 11/22/63. Those things should have been centerpieces of Mr. Groden's major "30th Anniversary" book release in 1993, wouldn't you think? And yet not only doesn't Groden say a single word in TKOAP about these things, he actually endorses the notion that Dr. Perry DID make his trach directly through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's neck. Here's what Groden wrote on page 76 of TKOAP: "The President's throat wound has long been the subject of controversy. Was it an entrance or exit wound? Few medical personnel viewed the wound in its original state before it was obliterated by a tracheotomy procedure." -- Robert J. Groden; Page 76 of "The Killing Of A President" (1993) It's utterly inconceivable to me that Bob Groden would endorse in his major book release of 1993 the fact that Dr. Perry did, indeed, perform the trach incision through the bullet hole in JFK's throat if he had direct information to the contrary that came out of the mouth of Dr. Perry himself while the two men were standing face-to-face in Dr. Perry's office sixteen years earlier. What possible explanation could there be for Groden not shouting from the rooftops (and in his 1993 book), "Dr. Perry told me he never cut through the wound!", if Perry had, in fact, said that very thing to Groden's face in the year 1977? Did Groden just forget about his bombshell meeting with Perry in '77?

Okay. Whatever you say.