Tom Neal

Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI was considered a firearms expert...However, a careful examination of his work and evidence reveals a plethora of errors.

One such error is revealed in the excerpt from his testimony below...

Hello Robert,

Considering SA Frazier's WC testimony in its entirety, it is my long-held belief that is not presenting the truth, and he knows it. He is simply delivering the Hoover-approved fiction that is required to "pin the tail" on LHO.

This is a well thought out and clear presentation of the facts regarding CE-399 and the alleged assassination weapon. I'm eager to hear more...

Tom

Robert,

In my opinion, a pristine bullet with a pointed nose really was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital,

Agreed.

by sheer coincidence, and it had nothing to do with the assassination.

I used to unquestioningly believe the SS/FBI took advantage of the "found" bullet to plant the "magic bullet" and that's all there was to it. This is one of many reasons I believe the coverup was dynamic rather than following a static pre-assassination script. I still believe they did perform a switch, but I wonder if they had to hide the found bullet as much as, or even more than they had to produce the magic bullet.

The recent statement by Sam Kinney's close friend, that Sam himself had placed that bullet on the stretcher was quite a shock. This is of course "hearsay" because Kinney didn't write all this down...The guy appears credible to me, and the way Kinney presented the info to him doesn't indicate that he misunderstood. Unless the friend simply didn't understand how important this information was, it's virtually impossible to think he wouldn't have said "Where did you find that bullet, and why didn't you turn it in instead, Sam?"

What little I've seen of this interview makes no mention of these questions, and if this guy is telling the truth, I can only think of one reason why Kinney would do what he did. Either before or immediately after the shooting, Kinney thought SS people were involved. IMO, their involvement is QUITE likely so does lend a degree of credibility to the claim.

Do you think Kinney's friend is not believable? Sorry if I'm hijacking, but I'm hoping you or someone else can add some more info to this story...

Tom

Robert Mady,

Your comment raises a question: How much of the physical record implicating Oswald was planted pre-assassination, and how much was fabricated post-assassination?

It's clear to me the pristine bullet was fabricated post-assassination. If the back wound was fabricated. it was fabricated post-mortem on 11-22-63.

I've never thought the back wound was fabricated. If as you say it was, in order to link the pristine bullet to a JFK wound, than I credit the plotters with excellent plotting that failed to achieve its objective. No one other than you, as far as I know, has made this link.

I've thought the plotters had one initial objective for Oswald: to get him arrested for JFK's murder (or Tippit's murder). He was a hot potato for the FBI and the CIA, and therefore those agencies would make sure he was never investigated honestly.

I've thought the plotters had simply one more objective for Oswald: to make sure he didn't talk openly.

The plotters didn't have to worry about cover-up once Oswald was dead. J. Edgar Hoover, acting out of self interest, would see to the cover-up.

Given that Oswald was arrested and charged before any physical record implicating him (except apparently a backyard photo that Oswald dismissed) had come to light. fabricating a physical record implicating him would have been fairly easy.

In my estimation, the whole physical record implicating Oswald has been fabricated. In my view therefore whether the back wound was fabricated is a minor issue.

Jon,

A PERFECT summation.

Tom

Robert Mady,

YES it is my opinion that this hole in fact was punched into his back

"Opinion." Prior to this you are presenting it as a fact. I don't know what caused it, you don't know what caused. Without a full explanation, it is not a fact, it's a theory. The more evidence you present to support this theory the stronger it is. Burkley was not the only person to see this back wound at Parkland. IIRC the nurses washed the body and were well aware of the wound. The original myth was that Parkland did not know about the back wound, and Bethesda didn't know about the throat wound. Both were proven to be incorrect.

Whether Burkley told the truth about the back wound or not, others DID see it. Who said they looked at his back, and there was no wound? No one. Burkley, the nurses, and someone else that I can't recall. When was there any opportunity for someone at Parkland to punch a whole in JFK's back? He was never alone.

I agree that this a suspicious wound, but it is FAR from a proven fact that it was manufactured, so stop presenting it as one, and remember even you stated it's an opinion.

Unless you have a reasonable explanation for the shallow back wound

Right back at you. What's YOUR reasonable explanation? The conspirators who screwed up so many things had planned the fake back wound all along and had prearranged for Burkley to lie, and the nurses et al to swear to it? This would require Burkley to be guilty of conspiracy to murder the president, rather just another person who was somehow convinced to cover up the conspiracy. If this was all preplanned they would have planted an MC bullet on JFK's stretcher or forced it into the wound.

please consider stopping the ridicule of this concept.

"Ridicule?" If objecting to you calling a theory a fact is "ridiculing" then you need to consult a dictionary. It was your ridicule of others that don't accept your theory as a fact that prompted me to respond. And now you ARE ridiculing me for not accepting YOUR unproven argument, so take your own advice.

There is not enough evidence to state the wound was manufactured, or it was real. Thus, NEITHER theory is a fact.

4) How is it germane? BURKLEY lied about the wounds being identical, BURKELY LIED, if he lied once there is no reason not be believe he lied more than once...

Did he lie about EVERYTHING from the time of JFK's murder, or was he induced to become part of the coverup, along with every other official involved? Where is the evidence that he punched a hole in JFK's back (or was a party to it) minutes after the assassination? Was this idea cooked up MINUTES after the assassination? When did they have the opportunity to do this? If Burkley was a party to creating this wound then he MUST have been a conspirator in the assassination, not a conspirator in the coverup. I have not heard anyone suggest that Burkley was involved in the actual assassination...

5) Just because I have not analyzed how or when the back wound was created is not an acceptable rejection of the argument.

Okay, here you go with the "straw man" tactic. How is objecting to you presenting your theory as a fact, "ridiculing" you and "rejecting" your argument? Conversely, how can you present this a fact when you have "not analyzed how or when the back wound was created." Yet that is EXACTLY what your are doing. How can you consider yourself credible when you haven't even done the BASIC research to support your alleged "fact"?

Others such as LIFTON have done extensive work on this, you want to know about it I would suggest that you review Mr. Lifton's work.

This is a WELL-informed group, yet you regularly presume that anyone who doesn't agree with you does so out of ignorance. You're the one that needs to "review" David Lifton's work. Why didn't you present a quote from Lifton stating that the back wound unquestionably was manufactured? Surely you have done a thorough review of his work or you wouldn't have cited him as proof of your THEORY. So why don't you know how Lifton explains how and when the back wound was created, and that it is a FACT, not a theory? Could it be that Lifton would not present something as a fact without proof positive?

Tom

And the "pristine" bullet the WC used as evidence wasn't so "pristine." It was flattened quite a bit, so much that it was more oval shaped than round. Now what could squeeze a bullet in such a manner, when it allegedly ONLY passed through soft tissue?

Mark,

I believe the word "pristine" is more of a reference that there was no tissue or blood on the bullet rather than no physical damage. The FBI witness was asked by the WC how the bullet was "cleaned." He responded that it "didn't need to be cleaned." Of course this is a bullet that supposedly passed through Kennedy and Connally... How could it be devoid of any bio matter? This should have been regarded as proof that the SBT is absurd.

My understanding is the only deformation of the bullet was caused by firing, which is evidence that this specific bullet did not hit either JFK or JBC. IMO it was a "test bullet" substituted for the actual bullet found on the stretcher either by the SS or the FBI.

Tom

Admiral George Burkley's Dallas Death Certificate

Tom I don't know when the hole was created.

Then you are ignoring a major hole in your argument. You are basically stating that the hole was created as though that were a fact. It isn't. It's an opinion or a theory. It was there at Parkland according to Burkley, Your theory requires someone at Parkland to have created it, or Burkley to lie about it, and the Bethesda doctors to lie about it also.

Maybe you wouldn't mind posting George Burkley's Warren Commission Testimony ?

If the above is a question or a challenge rather than a comment (I can't tell). Are you aware that Burkley wasn't called to testify? This has been cited as evidence that the WC was not seeking the truth. Burkley is an MD and the only doctor present at Parkland AND Bethesda.

Affidavit - Admiral George Burkley: "There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. "

Since you are convinced that the back wound was "created", do you believe this is supporting evidence? I don't see the relevance.

Maybe you believe that KENNEDY wasn't wounded in the back of the head or wounded in the throat and the Parkland Doctors were responsible for mutilating the Presidents neck when they botched the tracheotomy?

How is this germane to your theory that the hole in his back was created? But since you asked (or is it rhetorical?); I do believe there was a head wound in the back, and in the throat.

I do NOT believe the Parkland doctors messed with the body, nor do I believe the Parkland doctors "botched" the tracheotomy. Since I haven't implied ANY of the above, I have to wonder WHY you are asking these questions. Is this what YOU believe?

When you stated that you "don't know" how the back wound was created, that answered my question. After that I don't understand why any of your questions were included. If my comments don't answer your questions, you need to be clear exactly what it is you are asking...

Tom

I've spoken to DPD members and a lot of other folks in Dallas who realized that "the fix was in" quite quickly - say within 48 hours. That applies to certain of the statements from the fellows on the fifth floor and perhaps most obviously to the sudden disappearance of remarks from the TSBD manager who was quoted on the first day as having seen Oswald in the entry way around the time of the shooting. Heck, even senior DPD officers knew and later commented that the fix was in - direct from D.C.

Larry, I have read quotes from various sources over the years regarding Truly's statement that he had seen LHO on the front steps around the time of the shooting, but I haven't found an original source. It seems that a media statement was likely, but I can't find it. Can you provide any additional information?

My personal belief is that several people could provide an alibis for Oswald and probably did. DPD was told by the FBI they had their man, and we have numerous statements that by Friday evening, DPD had no interest in hearing any statement other than "LHO acting alone." Anyone who came forward on Friday evening, or Saturday to speak for LHO would have been turned away and no statement from them would have been recorded. Perhaps they were even accused of being his accomplice, as Buell Wesley Frazier was.

At "high noon" the very next day, Oswald was publicly executed while inside the police station. Anyone who didn't take that "hint" and shut up, was told/threatened to shut up about it by law enforcement officers. They could no longer help Oswald, he was dead. Considering the way DPD operated in 1963, if you were told to shut up by DPD AND THE FEDS, you shut up. Additionally, they may well have heard "rumors" of DPD involvement in the assassination. They stayed silent.

Tom

Welcome aboard, Tom! )

Thanks, Vince. Hopefully, I won't wear out my welcome too soon!

This Loucks fellow SOUNDS credible

Agreed. I'm convinced he's relaying the information he was given, at least to the degree that he understands the case and all of its nuances. From the way Loucks summarizes his facts, his goal for that interview was to make three items clear:

1.)Sam Kinney emphatically confirms a shot from the Knoll.

2.)CE399 (did SK actually refer to it as 399?) was taken from the limo by SK and placed on a stretcher

3.)SK believed there was a conspiracy because one man couldn't have done it alone

That said, with all due modesty, I trust my three interviews with Sam (two of which are on tape) a tad more..

For sure. He was speaking on the record with you, and essentially having a conversation with Loucks. At that time, was Loucks familiar enough with the case to realize the implications of SK's statements? It *appears* that he is unaware of the broken chain of evidence for CE399, as he states that the "50 year old mystery" is now solved.

OTOH, you knew exactly what questions to ask, to get the most from SK's responses. Unfortunately, SK didn't fully explain everything he knew. I have been through your interviews and SK doesn't explain for example what Burkley did with the LARGE rear skull fragment. IF it was sent to Bethesda, they haven't admitted to it. We can only speculate as to its final disposition, and why SK would not supply further details.

It seems unlikely that Kinney washed the rear seat in Dallas, finding a bullet and skull fragments in the process, but didn't notice the large skull fragment that he later found in the limo on the flight back to DC, but it certainly is possible. Do you consider Loucks info as contradicting this earlier info from SK?

If you read my book (especially a section in chapter 8), there is much reason to question to provenance of CE399 regardless of these late revelations.

You book is absolutely essential to understanding the goings on in the SS, and I have read it thoroughly.

A court would conclude that an entirely different bullet was found on the stretcher at Parkland. The broken chain of evidence suggests that either SS or the FBI sustituted CE399 for the original. At the very least it would be excluded as evidence, which would remove the link of the "LHO rifle" to the assasination.

Considering your SS knowledge and contacts with SK, I imagine Gary Louckes would be eager to speak with you to "get the info out," as he promised his friend Sam, that he would. Certainly someone should contact him to get all the info he has, and you are the most logical choice.

Although I'm hungry for whatever additional info he can provide, I'm not the best choice for this task, so I'm holding myself back - - for the moment.

Tom

New Member -- First Post:

Sam Kinney told Gary Loucks that he found an undamaged bullet in JFK's limo. An undamaged bullet could be positively matched to the gun that fired it, and hopefully identify the assassin. It's location in the limo is vital to reconstructing the crime. So what does Kinney do with the most important piece of evidence found? He secretly deposits it on JFK's(?) stretcher, and never tells anyone. This action destroys the chain of evidence, and provides evidence contrary to the actual event. I can't believe he blatantly violated established procedure without a DAMN good reason...

Ideally he would have left it untouched at the crime scene, and reported it to Roberts or Kellerman. However, the limo was about to be driven to the airport and loaded onto a C-130, so noting it's location and turning it in to SS would have been an acceptable alternative.

So what does he accomplish by secretly leaving the bullet on the stretcher? The bullet doesn't go to Washington, it stays in Texas. It would end up with the Dallas police as they had jurisdiction at that time - unless it was not noticed at all, and inadvertantly thrown away. A risky plan, but it would be kept out of SS hands. Of course, this only makes sense if Kinney ALREADY believed SS was complicit in the assassination, and could not be trusted with important evidence. Additionally, I recall his statement to Vince P. that he found a large rear skull fragment in the limo during the C-130 flight back to DC. He says he turned it in to his good friend Admiral Burkley. Why didn't he turn THAT evidence in to SS either?

Speculation of course, but I'm at a loss how to otherwise explain his actions.

Alternate theories gratefully accepted...

Tom

My name is Tom Neal, I'm a retired United Airlines pilot. My family and I have lived in Orlando, FL for the last 25 years.

I was born just outside Boston, MA in 1953. When JFK assumed office I was only 6 years old, and 10 when the news of his assassination was broadcast over the school's public address system. He was the only president I "knew." Eisenhower, and all the others were historical figures to me. I was shocked. I still am, but for a different reason.

His assassination was a full-blown coup triggered by his actions that would end the Cold War. Those responsible violated every tenet of our system of democracy, yet they believe their motivation was Patriotism.

Legally, those who maintain the coverup are accessories to murder and treason. There is no statute of limitations for either crime. Is it any wonder they will do whatever it takes to maintain the Cover-up?

They protect those who still believe war for profit is a justifiable business plan. Iraq, for example. Their motivation is not patriotism -- it is GREED.

When Oswald was executed on live television, I knew there was more to the assassination than the act of a lone nut. The WC "closed sessions" and the vast amount of information classified for decades reinforced my belief. If it truly was a LONE act, why the need for ANY classification?
This began a life long interest in the assassination.

LHO never fired a shot that day, and I sincerely doubt "his rifle" was fired at all. He seemed genuinely shocked to find himself accused of the crime. As he stated, he was a patsy. He must have been involved with those who committed the crime, but did he know they planned to assassinate the president that day? If so, what was he told to do as his part in the assassination? If not, why did he make his (apparently preplanned) journey to the movie theater to meet someone?

So many questions...