Denny Zartman

I'm following this thread and I don't agree with Mark. It seems to me that two questions should be considered: Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald at some time prior to June 3, 1960? Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in the days and weeks prior to November 22, 1963? If the answer to number 1 is "No", then how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 where he writes: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11510#relPageId=836 If the answer to number 2 is also "No,", then how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination, including the sighting of Oswald at the Dallas Furniture Mart where he was observed driving away? https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m2.htm If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

Hi Greg, welcome to the forum. Since my little informal analysis has been brought up in this thread, I might as well throw in my two cents. Vince Palamara notes repeatedly in his 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" that many of the medical witnesses have indeed given contradictory accounts at different times. If that was not reflected in my analysis, it is a fault of mine and should not reflect upon the quality of Vince's work. My analysis was intended to attempt to briefly and as impartially as possible count the number of health professionals who had observed JFK's anterior neck wound and how they characterized that wound, not just to the Warren Commission (where they would be under the most pressure to conform to the official story), but contemporaneously as well as what they've later said in interviews to authors and reporters. I did this analysis based upon the information in Vince's 2015 book. In my list, I clearly quoted Dr. William Clark as saying that Dr. Kemp Clark told him that Kemp observed the throat wound and Kemp said that it was one of entrance. I did not imply nor intend to imply that William observed it himself, only that William characterized it as one of entrance based upon the information provided to him by Kemp. I probably I should have listed Kemp's name instead of William's in order to better conform to the intent of the analysis. Nurse Diana Bowron is quoted from Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book "Killing The Truth" pg. 718: It seems that many of the witnesses in the JFK case were pressured to conform to the official story, and it is true that many of them did equivocate when testifying to the Warren Commission. Of course the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter were under pressure to do everything they could to make the Lone Nut theory plausible and to discourage and dismiss any countering testimony. If I recall correctly, Specter had to use theoreticals and assumptions to get many of these doctors and nurses to admit to a possibility that the anterior neck wound was one of exit. To take the Warren Commission testimony of anyone and rely exclusively on that testimony as the clearest evidence of that person's true opinions and observations would be a mistake, in my opinion. That's why I think it's important to also consider the contemporaneous statements as well as the statements made to sources other than the Warren Commission. Vince Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" pgs. 13-14, regarding Dr. Charles Carrico's observations: Palamara 2015 pg. 24, regarding Dr. Charles Baxter's observations: So that's it for Dr. Charles Baxter, right? He's one of those that said it could be either an entrance or an exit, correct? But wait a moment. Not so fast. It seems that Dr. Charles Baxter wasn't so unsure about the nature of the anterior neck wound when asked about it later. From Palamara 2015, also pg. 24, regarding Dr. Baxter's observations: The quote "And it was an entry wound" was, in my opinion, definitive enough for me to put Dr. Charles Baxter in the category of those who characterized the anterior neck wound as one of entrance. So it is a grand total of one medical professional who saw JFK's anterior neck wound and described it as one of exit? Yet, even that testimony to the Warren Commission seems to be called into question. Livingstone 1993, pg. 13, regarding the observations of Dr. Marion Jenkins: I have not yet been able to find a transcript if one even exists) of the Dallas forum where Jenkins and the others discussed the anterior throat wound.

This is one of my pet peeves. Courts don't prove someone innocent. A verdict of "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution hasn't proven their case, not that the accused is innocent of the charge or charges.

Thanks for the link, George. It's the same, superficial, misleading rehash of the Lone Nut theory I thought it might be. I keep hoping that if someone is going to write an article about the film in this day and age that they would at least take the time to try and bring something fresh.

I'd like to read it, but I don't really want to sign up.

Regarding Minsk: Logic tells me that the Soviets would easily see Oswald and any other suddenly dissaffected American military types defecting to Russia as obvious spies. The Soviets give Oswald a shell job or two, and then keep him under constant surveillance and away from places spies shouldn't be. The Soviets even manage to get an informant to marry him. But whoever sent Oswald to Russia in the first place must have known that the Soviets would work under the assumption that Oswald was an obvious spy and therefore would be unlikely to get many opportunities to do some serious spy work. This assumption that Oswald was considered to be a spy would have been confirmed to the US by the fact Oswald got a good-paying skilled factory job very quickly (a job I suspect he never actually worked more than a day or two), and was treated to a comparatively lavish lifestyle. So, did Oswald get any meaningful "spy activities" done during his time in the USSR? In other words, did whoever sent Oswald to Russia ultimately feel that they accomplished their goal?

I don't really have any doubt on this anymore. I always try to remain agnostic on any particular point of fact no matter how large or small. I don't want to even unconsciously support an incorrect assertion simply because I have already taken a public position that I feel the need to defend. I want to be 100% open to new arguments and new evidence as much as possible. This case deserves it. But it is clear to me there is something to Harvey & Lee. I believe now that there was indeed some sort of organized government Oswald Project that likely dated back several years and quite possibly a decade or more. I do not discount that possibility as unlikely or far-fetched. This Oswald Project was probably intended to create a better spy with an interchangeable identity. I do not claim to understand all, or even most, of the Harvey & Lee theory. My decision to believe that it is likely comes from long-time observations of these debates over Harvey & Lee on this forum, and me trying my best to apply logic and common sense. It's impossible for me to believe that the use of "Harvey Lee Oswald" on a government document post-assassination would be a simple clerical error, yet I think it was meant to be explained away as a simple error should any questions ever arise. Only months after the assassination, the name Lee Harvey Oswald was emblazoned on everyone's minds. No one is going to make that error on an official document. If they did, someone would have caught it and re-typed it. It appears to me that, more likely than not, "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a name used by two or more people, while "Harvey Lee Oswald" was possibly intended to refer to one specific individual.

I don't believe so. If one aspect of a theory is disproved, it doesn't automatically invalidate all the other aspects. When you say far-fetched, I assume you are talking specifically about the concept of a long term doppelganger project, and not about the idea that someone else was using Oswald's identity prior to the assassination, correct? We don't believe that one or more people were using Oswald's identity by accident or coincidence, do we? That right there seems to me to prove there was some sort of secret organized project that involved Oswald's identity was going on behind the scenes. If one acknowledges that an individual or individuals were actively using Oswald's identity in the days/weeks/months/years prior to the assassination, is it really that far-fetched to think that a longer-term program intended to create a better spy might have existed? You think the military wouldn't try such a thing? Aren't we really just arguing about the degree?

I'm still reading and digesting the Kittrell manuscript. Thank you to everyone posting on this thread. It's very interesting. My initial observations: Kittrell's identification of Larry Crafard as the impostor seems to be an important piece of information I'll be curious to learn more about. I also need to learn more about Thomas Eli Davis, reportedly a CIA associate that allegedly admitted to using Oswald's name. The motorcycle jacket is a fascinating detail that I still don't fully understand. Common sense seems to indicate that it was most likely an identifiable wardrobe item shared by two people to make it easier for one to pass as the other. Does anyone know if there any photos of Oswald wearing such a jacket, and/or was a jacket similar to this description ever found among his belongings? Interesting how this case now features two mysterious Oswald jackets. Kittrell also makes an interesting observation that an American passing through Minsk probably wouldn't immediately be offered a job. If the information in the earlier posts of this thread is true and Oswald was the only American staying in Minsk as opposed to passing through as a tourist, that would also be noteworthy. I personally interpreted the "little bits of metal" explanation to indicate that Oswald held the factory job and was paid for it, but didn't actually ever work there. Either the Soviets gave him a cover job that paid him and didn't require him to work, or he just dropped into the country and got a job working with "little bits of metal." If he actually had this job, why then could/would he not be able to better explain the specific work to the employment counselor in order to help him find similar employment? As if Kittrell is going to call up her contacts looking for jobs that involve "little bits of metal" because she has a job-seeker who is experienced in "little bits of metal." In short, either scenario sounds shady to me. I have great difficulty in believing that the pregnant woman observed at Kittrell's first meeting with the man in the motorcycle jacket was a Marina impostor, despite her clothing apparently not matching what Marina usually wore. I also don't understand why that Oswald would feel the need for the violent demonstration of hitting the table. Trying to implicate himself by displaying a hair-trigger temper doesn't make sense. It seems to me that two impostors would be more likely than "real" Oswald with a fake Marina.

Congratulations! I very much look forward to it, Vince. As I've probably mentioned before, "JFK From Parkland To Bethesda" is the most dog-eared and underlined book in my library. I don't think any other book mentions the unidentified bleeding VIP treated at Parkland that day.

This whole post was excellent. Thanks for the analysis. It makes sense. Does anyone know if Laura Kittrell's manuscript is available online? I'd like to read it. I didn't know about the motorcycle jacket. That's an interesting detail that should have been easy to confirm Oswald's ownership of such a jacket.

Hi Anthony, I have a few questions. How do you (or Donald Thomas, as I do not yet own that book) explain: The opinion of all the doctors and nurses at Parkland who saw JFK's anterior throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and say that the wound was one of entrance and not one of exit? The doctors at Bethesda probing the back wound and finding it to be shallow? The doctors at Bethesda not being able to track the path of the bullet through JFK's body?

When an artist of Dylan's stature and a winner of a Nobel prize in literature writes the longest song he's ever released and it happens to be about the JFK assassination, people on a JFK assassination forum are going to talk about it. I doubt you could name one single inaccuracy or false fact in Rush To Judgment. Really? Then why do you continually attack those that doubt the conclusion of the investigation based on that evidence? This is comical. You're going to lump in extremely implausible explanations with what you cleverly attempt to deceitfully characterize as "superficially implausible" explanations because they're not impossible. As a wise man once said, theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Just because something extremely implausible is not absolutely impossible doesn't mean a rational person should conclude it's every bit as possible as anything else. You first say that some of the items of evidence in this case does raise legitimate doubt, and then you turn around with a blanket insult and say that CT's are fundamentally irrational. You think people should look past evidence that raises legitimate doubt and reach a different conclusion, and/or that examining that evidence is fundamentally irrational? That doesn't make sense. You know what's irrational? Thinking that someone's going to kill the president with no motive and no getaway plan. You know what's irrational? Thinking that the guy who killed the accused assassin risked going the electric chair to save a lady he's never met, and wouldn't even bother going across the street to see, a trip back to Dallas. You know what's irrational? Claiming to be a lawyer and an expert in the JFK assassination, and yet not being able to answer one simple yes or no question: Could Oswald drive? You know what's irrational? Believing Arlen Specter, a lawyer with no medical experience and who was not at Parkland hospital when JFK arrived, over every medical professional who saw JFK's anterior neck wound and described it as one of entrance. Admiral George Burkley, President Kennedy's personal physician and the only medical professional to see JFK's body at Parkland and at Bethesda, didn't want to be quoted when asked if he agreed with Warren Commission about the number of bullets that entered JFK's body. What is a rational person supposed to think when confronted with that fact? Three Warren Commission members expressed doubt. Knowing that, is it really fundamentally irrational for a person to question things? Even Lyndon Johnson himself expressed doubt. Now is it rational to also harbor some doubt and attempt to seek answers to unanswered questions? The current official position of the United States government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Those that believe there was no conspiracy are the ones that are outside the official position of the US government, not the conspiracy theorists.

I try not to post off-topic, but I'll make an exception because, hey, it's the Rolling Stones. I'm a long time fan that is always interested in new music, and was very excited to hear the rumors buzzing on the fan forum the day before and then counting down to whatever was supposed to happen at noon that day. Luckily the rumors were true, and it was the surprise release of a great new single. I really enjoy the changes in the song. First it's a laid back groove, then it gets intense, and then there's that sweet reggae dub breakdown. The only bad thing is that breakdown is so short. It makes me want it to go on and on. Apparently the song was recorded a year ago with only minor updates to the lyrics. Reaction from the fans and casual music listeners seems to be almost entirely positive. I look forward to hopefully hearing a full new album sooner rather than later. Viva le Rolling Stones!

I personally wouldn't, because I don't claim to fully understand it. I wouldn't even say I fully believe it either and I understand why you would find it unlikely. But I can't and wouldn't discount the theory because there seems to be evidence to back it up. I definitely would bring up what appears to be evidence that Oswald was impersonated in the days and weeks leading up to the assassination. Far from dismissing them as a mere (and apparently meaningless) handful, I see evidence of even one impersonation of Oswald to be evidence of the conspirators at work, therefore worthy of close examination and comparisons to other alleged instances of Oswald impersonation. And I might bring up James Wilcott's testimony. It seems to me that if one accepts the possibility that James Wilcott's testimony is accurate, even the most conservative estimation of "late 1950's" would indicate a CIA run "Oswald Project" that dates back more than two and a half years. The thing to point out is that it of course it would be crazy to think that the CIA started the so-called "Oswald project" to assassinate a president that hadn't even been elected yet. That's why it would be important to note that an "Oswald project" was likely started with the intention of creating a better spy to spy on the Soviet Union, certainly not an outlandish concept, in my view. That's a theoretical question I don't think I can answer. I haven't tried to put myself in the shoes of a LN and tried to argue the case from that perspective. But I had grown up with the Lone Nut theory and had no reason to doubt it at the time I knew little. Ironically it was Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" that both sparked my interest in the case and made me a CT. It is hard to try and put myself back in the frame of mind where I thought Oswald did it alone and try to imagine what I would have attempted to argue. I hope I would have argued from the evidence instead of trying to portray my opponents as "crazies."

What's your opinion on James Wilcott saying that he distributed military money for a CIA "Oswald project" in the late 1950's?

I too am slightly uncomfortable with the title hero being given to anyone who has done any research on the assassination. This is only my opinion. Perhaps "pioneers" or "figures of note" or some other title would be more appropriate. In my view, the title of hero should be applied mostly to those who showed bravery in the face of danger. No doubt many researchers and authors have been pressured and threatened over the decades, and then continued to work. Their courage should be recognized and saluted. Of course the efforts of so many people contributing their time researching the assassination and sharing the results are greatly appreciated and also should be respectfully acknowledged as well. In my personal opinion, the witnesses and researchers that had information that indicated a conspiracy and resisted pressure to change their stories or were threatened to remain silent but spoke up regardless, especially when there was little for them to gain and much to lose - those, to me, are the true heroes. Some of them did die at the hands of assailants looking to keep them quiet. It seems to me those are the names that are the most likely to fall through the cracks and be forgotten. Either way, it's an interesting idea for a project that will help recognize the major figures in assassination research.

I wrote an email to Stephen Jaffe. He replied that the film is on hold due to the virus and to some extent the writing his book is on hold as well.

Has anyone determined the significance of the line "Moonlight Sonata in F sharp", since the piece as written is actually in C sharp minor?

I'm normally adverse to taking a position on many aspects of the case because I'd like my mind to be open to new evidence or a new argument. By taking a position it sometimes makes us close our minds to any new countering evidence. We sometimes feel compelled to defend our previously staked-out position rather than be open to a more accurate appraisal of the facts. That said, when initially investigating a crime, it appears that we ask who benefits the most from it? I would think that Lyndon Johnson fits that profile as much as any other individual alive at the time. I'd imagine that even those who thought Johnson was not the main plotter would concede that fact. So, if Johnson wasn't the main plotter, then I would consider one of two things would have to be true: The plotters of the JFK assassination either also plotted to have Johnson as Vice President, or they just got lucky to have a compliant VP waiting in the wings ready to assist in putting a cover up in motion right from the beginning. The latter is possible, but I tend to look suspiciously on any factor of the JFK assassination that relies on luck. I suppose that the opposite argument could be true - that it's equally unlikely that Johnson "got lucky" to be Vice President to a President so hated by multiple diverse factions and so willing and eager to help Johnson ascend to power. The conspirators have to get into the autopsy room. To me, that's a given. Could the mafia get into the Bethesda autopsy room? Could Texas oilmen? The Vice President couldn't, but the President certainly seems like he or she could. If we believe that there were uniformed military personnel directing the autopsy, we seem to have no one above them but the President. Possibly a rogue Joint Chiefs of Staff, but who else other than the President? A President who was also close, longtime friends and a neighbor with the head of the investigative bureau could accomplish a lot in covering up a crime. Could that have been a factor evaluated by Johnson when planning the crime? Personally, I don't discount the possibility that LBJ was the main plotter and that it was the other elements of the assassination plot that fell in line behind him rather than the other way around. To me, logic suggests a strong possibility.

Interesting analysis, Chris, thanks for sharing it. I once did a breakdown of the Parkland observations based on @Vince Palamara 's book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda", I'll have to see if I can find it again and compare notes. One of my main takeaways was that every medical professional at Parkland who observed Kennedy's anterior neck wound prior to the tracheostomy described it at the time as one of entrance. If I recall correctly only one doctor later wavered and said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound. Everyone else stuck to their story. And this story of an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's neck was so well known early on that Life magazine reported incorrectly that the (at the time still unseen by the public) Zapruder film showed Kennedy turned around in his seat and facing the TSBD at the time of the shooting. In my opinion, part of the problem with assessing the evidence of a cover-up before making a judgement on the possibility of conspiracy is that "they" have tried to float the idea of a "benign cover-up" - that they were trying to cover their reputations after the fact, not hide their criminal behavior beforehand. The government agencies or entities that appear to have covered certain things up were simply embarrassed by their appearance of negligence prior to the assassination, so after the assassination they fudged things behind the scenes to make themselves appear less negligent. This was a theory Newsweek magazine tried to pitch in the '90's as a way of explaining what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating a cover-up.

A few more random observations: “Perfectly executed, skillfully done” It’s a cliché that when someone is about to be executed, they are often asked if they have any last requests. I believe the song could be interpreted as JFK dying on the way to the hospital, and these are his last requests, merged with Dylan’s own requests for songs in tribute to JFK and others. There’s a mention of the radio in the car, and urging someone not to touch the dial, a common saying in radio and TV. The wolfman is evoked at the end of the first verse, I believe this is the only wolfman reference in which it’s not specifically Wolfman Jack. The later reference to the Invisible Man could make this first mention of the Wolfman is also a reference to a monster unleashed because of the JFK assassination. The second verse introduces the sixties, the pop music angle, expertly blended in with jfk symbolism. Bannister, Ferrie, “go for the throat” I believe is a reference to JFK’s anterior neck wound. “Then I’ll go to Altamont and sit near the stage” I think this line is more than just a simple invoking of a ‘60’s cultural event that bookends Woodstock. Dylan also seems to offer himself up as a sacrifice by placing himself in Meredith Hunter’s place. Whiteface clown – a reference to Dylan’s own “whiteface” makeup? “Going down to the crossroads, going to flag a ride - The place where faith hope and charity died” = hell The invisible man – Obviously a Universal Studios monster that counted the Wolfman as one of his peers. This could also refer to someone in camouflage, since the next line invokes war. “Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we give” I love that little descending note when he sings “give.” I also like the long pause on “We’re right down the street… from the street where you live”. Very effective and affecting use of phrasing and space right there. “Turn the radio on, don’t touch the dials” After this the perspective immediately switches from JFK, to Oswald, back to JFK, and then to Dylan himself in the next line about watching the Zapruder film. “What’s new, pussycat? What’d I say?” Love his voice when he sings the line “What’d I say?” Then when he starts making requests, really some brilliant writing. “Take me to the place Tom Dooley was hung” has such vulnerability to it. This is one of my favorite moments of the song. St James Infirmary, King James, and Etta James. Very nice bringing the three together. At this point Dylan begins relaxing the concept of requesting Wolfman Jack to play songs for him by asking for more modern songs as well as traditional gospel songs, things the Wolfman wouldn’t or couldn’t play. Then Dylan relaxes the concept even further, requesting non-musical artists like Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd (both silent film stars) and then Bugsy Sigel and Pretty Boy Floyd (both gangsters). It’s possible that he’s urging these figures to play instead of asking music from them. Dylan also requests at least one movie "It Happened One Night." “Play number 6” – Could be a reference to Jimi Hendrix’s song “If 6 Was 9” and/or the television show “The Prisoner”, a surreal ‘60’s TV show which featured political themes, heavy symbolic music in the final episodes, and a main character called Number Six. “Don’t worry Mr. President, help’s on the way” Dylan sings this line in a higher voice that sounds very much like he did when he was young. Then the ending, a very powerful series of requests, ending with double gut punch of “The Blood-Stained Banner” and “Murder Most Foul”. I’ll say it again - I think it’s a brilliant touch by Dylan to end by referencing the song that the listener is listening to. That’s a great meta moment and the perfect way to cap the song by taking it back to the beginning - “bringing it all back home” if you will.

“Goodbye, Charlie! Goodbye Uncle Sam!” I interpret this as a multiple reference to the Vietnam War (Charlie vs. Uncle Sam), the song from the movie “Goodbye, Charlie”, and Don McLean’s “American Pie”. “Murder Most Foul” has been compared to “American Pie”, the somewhat “Dylanesque” hit song from 1971 By Don McLean that similarly evoked the loss of American innocence using heavy musical references. With the “Goodbye, Charlie! Goodbye Uncle Sam!”, line you have the words “bye” and “bye” in close proximity, the final “bye” followed immediately by the name of America’s mascot, Uncle Sam. I believe both songs can co-exist and be enjoyed, but the comparison between the two songs still invites itself. In both songs the narrator goes to a Rolling Stones concert. I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that “Murder Most Foul” is almost exactly twice as long as the already epic eight and a half minutes of “American Pie.” Personally, I think Dylan deserves a lot of credit for going farther in the imagery as well as more direct references. Let’s also not forget that McLean’s song relies on a big hook and a catchy sing-along chorus. There are no hooks or catchy melodies in Dylan’s song. There will be no wedding singalongs of “Murder Most Foul". Yet Dylan is able to capture a listener's attention for twice the amount of time despite the lack of a hook and a catchy chorus.

Murder Most Foul by Bob Dylan It was a dark day in Dallas, November '63 A day that will live on in infamy President Kennedy was a-ridin' high Good day to be livin' and a good day to die Being led to the slaughter like a sacrificial lamb He said, "Wait a minute, boys, you know who I am?" "Of course we do, we know who you are!" Then they blew off his head while he was still in the car Shot down like a dog in broad daylight Was a matter of timing and the timing was right You got unpaid debts, we've come to collect We're gonna kill you with hatred, without any respect We'll mock you and shock you and we'll put it in your face We've already got someone here to take your place The day they blew out the brains of the king Thousands were watching, no one saw a thing It happened so quickly, so quick, by surprise Right there in front of everyone's eyes Greatest magic trick ever under the sun Perfectly executed, skillfully done Wolfman, oh wolfman, oh wolfman howl Rub-a-dub-dub, it's a murder most foul [Verse 2] Hush, little children, you'll understand The Beatles are comin', they're gonna hold your hand Slide down the banister, go get your coat Ferry 'cross the Mersey and go for the throat There's three bums comin' all dressed in rags Pick up the pieces and lower the flags I'm goin' to Woodstock, it's the Aquarian Age Then I'll go to Altamont and sit near the stage Put your head out the window, let the good times roll There's a party going on behind the Grassy Knoll Stack up the bricks, pour the cement Don't say Dallas don't love you, Mr. President Put your foot in the tank and then step on the gas Try to make it to the triple underpass Blackface singer, whiteface clown Better not show your faces after the sun goes down Up in the red light district, they've got cop on the beat Living in a nightmare on Elm Street When you're down on Deep Ellum, put your money in your shoe Don't ask what your country can do for you Cash on the barrelhead, money to burn Dealey Plaza, make a left-hand turn I'm going down to the crossroads, gonna flag a ride The place where faith, hope, and charity died Shoot him while he runs, boy, shoot him while you can See if you can shoot the invisible man Goodbye, Charlie! Goodbye, Uncle Sam! Frankly, Miss Scarlett, I don't give a damn What is the truth, and where did it go? Ask Oswald and Ruby, they oughta know "Shut your mouth," said a wise old owl Business is business, and it's a murder most foul [Verse 3] Tommy, can you hear me? I'm the Acid Queen I'm riding in a long, black Lincoln limousine Ridin' in the backseat next to my wife Headed straight on in to the afterlife I'm leaning to the left, I got my head in her lap Hold on, I've been led into some kind of a trap Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we give We're right down the street, from the street where you live They mutilated his body and they took out his brain What more could they do? They piled on the pain But his soul was not there where it was supposed to be at For the last fifty years they've been searchin' for that Freedom, oh freedom, freedom over me I hate to tell you, mister, but only dead men are free Send me some lovin', then tell me no lie Throw the gun in the gutter and walk on by Wake up, little Susie, let's go for a drive Cross the Trinity River, let's keep hope alive Turn the radio on, don't touch the dials Parkland hospital, only six more miles You got me dizzy, Miss Lizzy, you filled me with lead That magic bullet of yours has gone to my head I'm just a patsy like Patsy Cline Never shot anyone from in front or behind I've blood in my eye, got blood in my ear I'm never gonna make it to the new frontier Zapruder's film I seen night before Seen it thirty-three times, maybe more It's vile and deceitful, it's cruel and it's mean Ugliest thing that you ever have seen They killed him once and they killed him twice Killed him like a human sacrifice The day that they killed him, someone said to me, "Son The age of the Antichrist has just only begun" Air Force One comin' in through the gate Johnson sworn in at 2:38 Let me know when you decide to throw in the towel It is what it is, and it's murder most foul [Verse 4] What's new, pussycat? What'd I say? I said the soul of a nation been torn away And it's beginning to go into a slow decay And that it's thirty-six hours past Judgment Day Wolfman Jack, he's speaking in tongues He's going on and on at the top of his lungs Play me a song, Mr. Wolfman Jack Play it for me in my long Cadillac Play me that "Only the Good Die Young" Take me to the place Tom Dooley was hung Play "St. James Infirmary" in the court of King James If you want to remember, you better write down the names Play Etta James, too, play "I'd Rather Go Blind" Play it for the man with the telepathic mind Play John Lee Hooker, play "Scratch My Back" Play it for that strip club owner named Jack Guitar Slim going down slow Play it for me and for Marilyn Monroe [Verse 5] Play "Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" Play it for the First Lady, she ain't feeling any good Play Don Henley, play Glenn Frey Take it to the limit and let it go by Play it for Carl Wilson, too Looking far, far away down Gower Avenue Play tragedy, play "Twilight Time" Take me back to Tulsa to the scene of the crime Play another one and "Another One Bites the Dust" Play "The Old Rugged Cross" and "In God We Trust" Ride the pink horse down that long, lonesome road Stand there and wait for his head to explode Play "Mystery Train" for Mr. Mystery The man who fell down dead like a rootless tree Play it for the reverend, play it for the pastor Play it for the dog that got no master Play Oscar Peterson, play Stan Getz Play "Blue Sky," play Dickey Betts Play Art Pepper, Thelonious Monk Charlie Parker and all that junk All that junk and "All That Jazz" Play something for the Birdman of Alcatraz Play Buster Keaton, play Harold Lloyd Play Bugsy Siegel, play Pretty Boy Floyd Play the numbers, play the odds Play "Cry Me A River" for the Lord of the gods Play Number nine, play Number six Play it for Lindsey and Stevie Nicks Play Nat King Cole, play "Nature Boy" Play "Down In The Boondocks" for Terry Malloy Play "It Happened One Night" and "One Night of Sin" There's twelve million souls that are listening in Play "Merchant of Venice", play "Merchants of Death" Play "Stella by Starlight" for Lady Macbeth Don't worry, Mr. President, help's on the way Your brothers are comin', there'll be hell to pay Brothers? What brothers? What's this about hell? Tell them, "We're waiting, keep coming," we'll get them as well Love Field is where his plane touched down But it never did get back up off the ground Was a hard act to follow, second to none They killed him on the altar of the rising sun Play "Misty" for me and "That Old Devil Moon" Play "Anything Goes" and "Memphis in June" Play "Lonely At the Top" and "Lonely Are the Brave" Play it for Houdini spinning around his grave Play Jelly Roll Morton, play "Lucille" Play "Deep In a Dream", and play "Driving Wheel" Play "Moonlight Sonata" in F-sharp And "A Key to the Highway" for the king on the harp Play "Marching Through Georgia" and "Dumbarton's Drums" Play darkness and death will come when it comes Play "Love Me Or Leave Me" by the great Bud Powell Play "The Blood-stained Banner", play "Murder Most Foul"

Thanks very much!