Michael Griffith

You must be kidding. So your answer to all the ARRB-released material on the back wound and on the evolution of the autopsy report is to quote the third and final draft of the autopsy report?! This is your answer, even though we now know that the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute, observable fact, verified by others at the autopsy, that the back wound had no exit point, and even though we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report did not claim the throat wound was caused by an exiting bullet? Your reply seems like a conscious effort to deny disturbing facts, not a serious effort to deal with those facts. This is what happens when a group of true believers in an erroneous theory are confronted with ironclad evidence that the foundation of their theory is not only false but impossible. Without the SBT, there can be no lone-gunman theory. The ARRB disclosures about the back wound alone destroy the SBT. It has been obvious to objective people for a very long time that the SBT is absurd. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt refute it (the bunched-clothing theory requires us to believe that the coat and the tailor-made shirt magically bunched in virtually millimeter for millimeter correspondence, both horizontally and vertically). The chest x-rays refute it. The Zapruder film refutes it (JFK and JBC were never aligned in a manner that would make the SBT possible). The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital treatment reports refute it. JFK's tie knot refutes it (no hole through the knot and no nick on the edge of the knot). The irregular slits below JFK's collar refute it (they had no fabric missing and no traces of metallic substance on their edges--the first FBI lab report on the slits theorized they were made by a fragment). The irregular H-shaped hole in the front of JBC's shirt refutes it (I'm still waiting for someone to explain how CEE 399 could have made such a hole--it was clearly made by exiting fragments, not an intact missile). The accounts of the surgeon and nurse who repaired JBC's wrist refute it. Until they were finally pressured into changing their minds, even the autopsy doctors rejected it. And on and on we could go.

Are you folks ever going to deal with the ARRB evidence that proves that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via extensive probing that the back wound had no exit point, that the first two drafts of the autopsy report did not claim the throat wound was an exit wound for the bullet that struck the back, and that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound much earlier than they later claimed? We now know that the autopsy doctors did probe the back wound, with fingers and with a probe, that they removed the chest organs so they could see where the tract went, that they turned the body several ways and angles to facilitate the probing, that they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity, and that they could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity. That's when Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and said the back wound had no exit point. And now we know that others at the autopsy were aware of this as well, including one medical technician who witnessed the probing and who could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. Lipsey and Ebersole both confirmed that the autopsy doctors learned of the throat wound during the autopsy, not the next day as they later claimed. Lipsey revealed that the autopsy doctors attributed the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot because they had already established that the back wound had no exit point. Rankin's comment about the throat wound during the 1/27/64 WC executive session confirms Lipsey's account: Rankin mentioned that the autopsy report said a head-shot fragment caused the throat wound. Rankin apparently was looking at the second draft of the autopsy report. We know from multiple sources that the first draft of the autopsy report did not attempt to explain the throat wound and said the back wound had no exit point. Only the third version of the autopsy report said the back-wound bullet exited the throat. When are lone-gunman theorists going to come grips with this historic information, which has been known for over a decade now?

How can you seriously post this stuff given that we now know, including from ARRB-released materials, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point, and therefore they speculated that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound? How? Are you aware of this evidence? If so, how do you explain it, if you say you still believe in the single-bullet theory? The old fallback line of "they were simply mistaken" won't work this time (it has rarely been credible in most other cases as well).

By the way, even Vincent Bugliosi admitted that not a single eyewitness actually described the sudden changing of direction that Myers assumes occurred: . . . it seems unlikely to me that Oswald would have changed directions (something, it should be added, that no witness saw). (Reclaiming History, endnote for 78, "why the cop stopped him") Bugliosi also admitted that if the assailant was Oswald, such a noticeable reversal of direction after allegedly spotting Tippit "would be inconsistent with Oswald's conduct that day" (Ibid.). Here's the core problem: ALL of the original police/FBI/SS reports on the Tippit shooting said the assailant was walking west, toward Tippit, when he stopped a foot or two in front of the front end of Tippit's car. But Myers must have "Oswald" suddenly spin around and walk away from Tippit before the encounter in order to explain why Tippit stopped him, since Oswald did not match the description of the suspect that was broadcast over the police radio (he was six years younger and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect). This is not to mention the fact that Tippit was far out of his assigned area, that there is no apparent innocent explanation for why Tippit was in Oswald's neighborhood, and that there is no apparent innocent explanation for Tippit's strange behavior in the 30 minutes before his death (speeding away from a gas station and frantically using a phone in a business). As for the latent palmprint, a few questions: 1. Lt. Day said he could still see the print on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints. So, what happened to the print that Day said remained visible on the rifle after lifting? And why did Latona find no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints? 2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.

What a bizarre "review." Myers does not deal with any of the important new evidence presented in JFK Revisited--not even one item. In fact, he does not address any of the evidence presented in the documentary. Instead, he harps on the fact that it does not address the Tippit shooting! What kind of a "review" is that? In his non-review review, Myers trots out some of the same dubious arguments about the Tippit shooting that he's been peddling for years, arguments that he knows have been answered many times over by serious researchers. For example, Myers trots out his fiction that "Oswald" supposedly spun around and reversed direction when he saw Tippit's car. Myers knows that the clear weight of the eyewitness evidence indicates that the man Tippit stopped had not spun around. But Myers won't admit this because then he'd have to explain why the lackluster Tippit would have stopped the man, supposedly Oswald, based on the vague description given over the police radio. The description broadcast by the police said the suspect was “about 30, 5’10”, 165 pounds.” Well, Oswald was 24, 5’9”, and weighed 131 pounds. Thus, Oswald was six years younger, 1 inch shorter, and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect described in the police broadcast. And Myers knows full well that his "more than a half dozen eyewitnesses" were of questionable value and that their "identifications" would have been strongly challenged under cross-examination. Myers still won't even admit the obvious fact that the police lineups were unfair and rigged to make Oswald stand out.

If the lateral x-rays in evidence were pristine, they would show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, unless one wants to argue that Humes and Boswell unbelievably mistook the high fragment trail for one that was at least 2 inches lower and in a different part of the skull.

Not only did McNamara oddly fail to mention the "secret debrief" in his 1995 memoir, but not one of his devoted "whiz kids," such as John McNaughton, seemed to know anything about it. If they did, it is odd that not one of them ever publicly mentioned it. McNaughton's diary turned up a few years ago, and it says nothing about the alleged debrief or about any intention to completely withdraw regardless of the consequences. McNaughton was McNamara's confidant and closest adviser. He practically worshipped the ground McNamara walked on, and McNamara trusted McNaughton implicitly and relied heavily on him. Yet, even in his diary, McNaughton said nothing about the debrief or about any unconditional withdrawal plans. And, it bears repeating that the "secret debrief" is powerfully contradicted by Bobby's April 1964 oral interview and by every public statement that JFK made on Vietnam in the last three months of his life, including statements he made or was going to make on the last three days of his life.

I see a number of problems with this scenario. For starters, there is no trail of any fragments leading from the EOP to the right orbit on the extant skull x-rays. Two, the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays is clearly nowhere near the EOP, and this would have been plainly obvious on the lateral x-rays. Three, Finck was a forensic pathologist and had enough experience to distinguish between a fragment trail that started at the EOP and one that was well above and forward of it.

A brief summary would be helpful. It appears too obvious to deny that JFK's personal sexual morals left much to be desired. But, how does serial adultery compare with ordering innocent people murdered or with high treason or with trying to start a nuclear war for no valid reason?

Are you aware of what crime statistics show about murder rates in low-income areas when analyzed by racial demographics? I would agree that skin color in and of itself has nothing to do with it, since no one's skin color compels them to act in a certain way. This has much more to do with attitudes and mindsets among certain demographic groups. Crime statistics show that you are safer in some low-income communities than in others. That is just a fact, unless one wants to dismiss crime stats as rigged. I am not necessarily agreeing with the reply to which you were responding. In fact, I think the comment is too selective and too categorical. I am simply saying that crime stats show that some low-income areas are more dangerous than others and that analysis shows that racial demographics appear to play a role in the level of danger.

One historic piece of information that came to light through ARRB-released files and private interviews with autopsy witnesses is that on the night of the autopsy, the back wound was probed repeatedly, that part of the probing was done after internal organs had been removed to afford a better view of the probe, and that the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point. One of the medical technicians could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity and could see that the wound had no exit point.

The longer I study the JFK case, the more I am inclined to view Blakey as someone who did much to advance the case for conspiracy and to increase our knowledge of the case. For a long time, I thought Blakey should have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice. But, now that I know more about the conditions and constraints under which he worked, I see him in a more favorable light.

Oh, I can just imagine their responses: Custer misunderstood Ebersole. Custer invented the account because he was a publicity seeker. Custer is unreliable because he changed his story about the location of the large head wound. Ebersole could have simply done the taping of metal fragments and the x-raying of skull fragments by himself--he would not have needed to ask Custer to do these things for him. Why would the plotters have risked involving a low-level x-ray technician when Ebersole was a radiologist and could have done the job himself? Of course, the key to denying the problem here is to assume that Custer either lied or "misunderstood" Ebersole. Here are two of my still-unanswered questions for lone-gunman theorists about the autopsy skull x-rays: 1. Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report on the extant skull x-rays? The autopsy doctors said in the report that the trail began slightly above the EOP and ran to a point just above the right eye orbit. Where is that trail on the extant skull x-rays? 2. Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays? The high fragment trail is at least 2 full inches above the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Are you asking us to believe that the autopsy doctors were describing the high fragment trail when they said there was a fragment trail that began slightly above the EOP and ran to a spot just above the orbit of the right eye? Can anyone rationally fathom how even a first-year x-ray technician could make such a mind-boggling error?

"For an extended period of time"??? He only knew Oswald for four months. Another red flag about his story is that he says Oswald's Russian was not good. Leaving aside the question of how Gregory could have judged Oswald's Russian skills, other Russian speakers who knew Oswald said he spoke the language well.

I should have just avoided all adjectives and suggested you post your views in the thread that I suggested.

That's downright comical. That being said, I wish the moderators would move this thread to a different section of the forum. It really has nothing to do with the JFK case.

I don't dismiss Gregory's book because of his professional background. I dismiss it because Gregory clearly has done little serious research into the JFK case and into the flimsy case against Oswald. He appears to have only read a handful of pro-WC books and no books that present the other side. He recites the standard and discredited "evidence" against Oswald and seems unaware of the strong evidence of Oswald's innocence and of his intelligence connections.

I wonder if you are aware of just how many witnesses reported seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Banister, and with Ferrie and Shaw. I suggest you read Professor Joan Mellen's discussion on these associations in A Farewell to Justice, or the super-cautious Anthony Summers' discussion in Not in Your Lifetime. If this were a non-controversial case, the evidence for a significant Oswald-Ferrie-Banister link and for an Oswald-Shaw link would be considered compelling. No one would be nit-picking the witness accounts because they would be considered too numerous, credible, and mutually corroborating to be denied.

McNamara's "secret debriefing" may well have been one of the false paper trails that McNamara was caught trying to leave from time to time. Admiral Sharp mentions two such incidents in his book Strategy for Defeat. In one memo, McNamara claimed that Admiral Sharp supported all of his recommendations, when in fact McNamara knew this was false. In another misleading memo, McNamara even represented his views as being shared by the Joint Chiefs, when in fact the Joint Chiefs sharply disagreed with them. The Joint Chiefs issued a strongly worded memo that corrected the record. How many misleading memos did McNamara manage to push forward that were not detected by those being misrepresented? I suspect that McNamara's "secret debrief" was another one of his attempts to create a false paper trail. This may explain why McNamara inexplicably said nothing about the debrief in his 1995 memoir In Retrospect. You would think that the debrief would have been McNamara's Exhibit A for his claim that JFK was going to totally withdraw from South Vietnam. Yet, oddly, McNamara did not even mention the debrief in his memoir, much less discuss its contents. A very strange omission indeed.

This is baseless hyperbole. AA will not be "wiped out" if the Supreme Court rules that AA cannot be applied in a way that benefits some minorities at the expense of other minorities. Equal treatment under the law means just that; it does not mean applying the law so that it favors some minorities at the expense of other minorities. If most members of one minority can't get into a special high school because they don't do well on the entrance exam, the answer is not to abolish the entrance exam and replace it with a race-based quota system. And I again repeat the point that even the deep blue states of California and Washington have done away with race-based admission criteria. If the liberal governors and legislatures who run those states saw a problem with race-based admissions, one can hardly claim that it would be a "right-wing erasure of another JFK policy" if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in this case. I would bet good money that JFK would be siding with the plaintiffs if he were alive.

As others have noted, there is also Truly's 11/22/63 statement, which mentions the lunchroom encounter. That statement was not helpful to the lone-gunman position, even omitting the reference to the lunchroom encounter, so I think it's an untenable reach to suggest that Truly was lying, especially on the day of the shooting. This is pure speculation, but some of the people managing the cover-up in Dallas may have realized the severe problems that the lunchroom encounter posed for putting Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting, and they may have tried to make it go away but were unable to do so because there were too many early mentions of it in interviews and because the press publicized the encounter. Some of us are inferring far too much from the few early statements that got the floors confused. Such confusion was understandable and was corrected fairly quickly.

The bigger point is that Oswald's extensive association with Ferrie, Shaw, and Banister refutes the simplistic lone-gunman picture of him as a Marxist loner with no intelligence connections.

I wonder how Red Bird Airport figures into all of this. Two days before the assassination, Oswald, or his double, showed up at the airport with a man and a woman. The couple asked about renting a plane. On the day of the assassination, because of a 1:30 PM FBI notice to report suspicious activities, a tower operator at the airport became so suspicious of an aircraft on the runway that he made several calls to the FBI. The plane had remained ready for takeoff for some time and departed only after news of Oswald's arrest was announced. After taking off, the plane reversed course from its stated departure path and flew south instead of north. A bus that included Red Bird Airport on its route had a bus stop in Oswald's neighborhood of central Oak Cliff.

Thank you for the excellent response. I knew that Tunheim's claim about no SS records being destroyed sounded wrong.

No, I am not. Your views on the war are far left, whether you realize it or not. Even the more mainstream liberal books on the war, such as those by Karnow and Hastings, reject the wild, nutty claims of Chomsky, Prouty, etc. Now, all this being said, if I'd known that you would be so offended by my identifying the nature of your views on the war, I would have dropped all the adjectives and simply urged you to post those views in the thread on Stone's recent documentaries and the Vietnam War.