Michael Griffith

Haverstick found a woman who had known the CIA June Cobb very well, and the woman identified two photos of Jerrie Cobb as the woman she had known as June Cobb. The woman’s name was Fortuna Calvo-Roth. She was a reporter at a Spanish-language weekly in NYC that the CIA had used for communications between agents and their handlers. I quote from Haverstick’s account of Fortuna’s identification of Jerrie Cobb as June Cobb—and note that she explains the issue of how Cobb wore her hair:

          When I reached out to Fortuna Calvo-Roth, she was retired and still living in Manhattan after having become the first female editor of a major magazine at Vision, among other accomplishments. Admittedly, I didn’t say up front that a goal from the interview was an identification. It just seemed too far-fetched to bring up double identities, even in the form of a question. Instead, I explained that I was researching a number of fascinating women who had worked with Fidel Castro, and that I was especially interested in his American assistant, June Cobb.

          I designed a sheet of images for the identification featuring nine headshots, mostly of women who had worked with Castro. I included a photo of Jerrie, and in fact I used two. I also included two of another American woman accused of spying in Cuba, Marjorie Lennox. As for June, I used just one image—the picture June had sent to Newman. It was the clearest image by far and had unimpeachable sourcing. . . .

          As Fortuna reminisced about the trip, I asked if she’d come into contact with Castro or any of the women who worked in his office. She hadn’t. I then asked if she’d run into June Cobb, who’d worked for Fidel as a secretary of some sort in Havana. She said she hadn’t run into June Cobb in Cuba, but that she knew June well and saw her regularly, but always in New York.

          And there was my moment. I brought out my photo sheet and asked if she saw a picture of June on it, or if she recognized any of the women.

          She didn’t recognize the other women, but she did recognize June. She pointed first to one, then to the other photo of Jerrie Cobb.

          But Fortuna was perplexed, because June never wore her hair that way. She held her hands over Jerrie’s hair to better isolate the face. Yes, this looked like June, she said, but she never styled herself that way. I asked how June typically looked, and she said June always wore her hair in a chignon, an elegant French bun. June evidently wore the chignon without fail, and Fortuna couldn’t figure out why she wasn’t wearing it in the photos. We lingered over the photo sheet for some time, and while Fortuna was sure Jerrie was June, the hair just “wasn’t right.”

          I turned her attention to the photo June had sent to Newman. “Was this June?”

          No, she said very quickly and certainly. That was not June. (pp. 63-64)

The more I read Haverstick’s book (I’m on Chapter 8), the more I believe that Haverstick has uncovered some historic information about the JFK case.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. Please please quit pretending you've read my website. All this is covered in great detail. Readers beware. Much of what Michael has written here is misleading. 

For example, Both Sibert and O'Neil believed the large wound they saw was an exit wound for a bullet fired from behind. They did not on 11-22 or any time afterwards believe there was a blow out low on the back of the head for a bullet fired from in front of JFK. Although O'Neil's decades-later recollection of the wound's location led him to distrust the autopsy photos, moreover, he never said or claimed this as a sign of a widespread conspiracy, as he claimed until his death that Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone. 

For further example, VanHoesen was describing the hole remaining on the head AFTER the head had been re-constructed. Heck, even Doug Horne realizes as much. So why is that important? Uhh, gee, cosmetic skull reconstruction is different than forensic skull reconstruction. In a forensic reconstruction, bones are put back in their proper place. If a bone is missing, so be it. In a cosmetic reconstruction, the scalp and bones are arranged and glued, etc, in a manner concealing any missing scalp and bone on the face and top of the head, IOW, the parts of the head to be viewed in an open casket funeral. In this instance, the bones were re-arranged so the missing scalp and skull was on the back of the head, where it could be concealed in a pillow. So yeah, VanHoesen and Hagan's claim the wound was on the posterior skull during reconstruction is consistent with the historical record, and not indicative of the boogey man changing the President's wounds to confuse...who exactly? 

I mean, Lifton at least kinda made sense, in that he thought the alteration was performed to fool the doctors. Horne??? He thinks the alteration was performed by the doctors to create a false record--a false record in opposition to their autopsy report that was then withheld from the public. Say what? I mean, the autopsy photos prove JFK was NOT hit by a full-jacketed bullet entering near the EOP and exiting from the top of the head. But the research community is afraid to look at them, in fear the likes of Sandy will call them "WC defenders". 

Sibert and O'Neill's beliefs about the bullet's direction do not change the fact that they both said they saw a large wound in the back of the head, and that O'Neill said the back-of-head photo had been "doctored."

I already noted that Van Hoesen was describing the hole he saw after skull reconstruction. I noted that already, yet you repeat it as though you're proving something. 

How about the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped the head in a sheet? Hey? Did they all not know the difference between a wound in the back of the head and a wound above the right ear? How about Aubrey Rike, who was actually holding JFK's head while he helped put the body into the casket and who felt the sharp edges of a large wound in the back of the head? 

I notice you skipped over Robinson's repeated statements that he saw and handled a large wound in the back of the head? 

Yes, I've read your book. You keep claiming that your book resolves issues that it does not resolve, as I have proved in two other threads.

If I had to pick one researcher whose research may well suggest that they are a plant or that they are actually trying to hurt the case for conspiracy, I would be tempted to pick you.

2 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

New York Review of Books, December 20, 2001

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/12/20/the-tragedy-of-lumumba-an-exchange/

 

To the Editors:

In the review of my book The Assassination of Lumumba [NYR, October 4], Brian Urquhart focuses on the role of the UN in the Congo crisis (1960–1964). Thus Urquhart draws attention to a subject highly relevant for international politics today. The way he handles the issue, however, is less constructive. Research shows that UN Secretary-General Hammarskjöld played a decisive role in the overthrow of the Congolese government of Patrice Lumumba. Overlooking the facts, Urquhart calls this conclusion “ridiculous.” Once a member of the UN Secretariat himself, he clings to the official view that the UN is neutral and impartial, and that its intervention in the Congo had no other purpose than to keep “the cold war” out of Africa. If only this had been true.

In July 1960 the Security Council sent Blue Helmets to the Congo, where Belgian troops had invaded and seceded the rich copper province of Katanga. The UN mission was to provide the Congolese government with military aid until it could fulfill its tasks properly. Formally responding to the request of Lumumba, the operation was conceived not to hurt Washington’s ally. The UN asked Belgium to withdraw, but without a deadline. UN troops were deployed in the Congo, but not in Katanga. This gave Brussels crucial time to build up a puppet regime in Katanga around Moïse Tshombe. Urquhart pretends that Lumumba was “obsessed” with the secession. Lumumba had good reasons for this: the secession deprived the Congo of two thirds of its income and was throttling the country. UN troops finally entered Katanga, but only after Hammarskjöld guaranteed that the Belgian troops could stay, provided they put on a “Katangese” uniform. Belgian functionaries were unhindered to construct the “independent” state.

In September President Kasa Vubu carried out a coup and deposed Prime Minister Lumumba. Urquhart maintains that the UN didn’t take sides. In fact, the secretary-general had told US diplomats in secret that “Lumumba must be broken.” He gave the green light for the UN to support the coup. The UN closed the airports, so that loyal troops couldn’t come to the help of Lumumba. The UN also closed the radio station, so that Lumumba couldn’t appeal to the population. And the UN distributed money to the Congolese soldiers on condition that they stayed passive before the coup. (In his book Hammarskjöld Urquhart “forgets” to mention that the money was secretly provided by Washington…)

After the coup, the Congolese parliament renewed its confidence in Lumumba. But Colonel Mobutu dissolved parliament, and Lumumba was locked up in his residence, surrounded by a double cordon: one of UN guards protecting him, and a second cordon of Mobutu’s soldiers, who officially wanted to arrest him. Urquhart states that the US wanted Mobutu to arrest Lumumba, but that Hammarskjöld refused this, and wanted a reconciliation between Lumumba and Kasa Vubu and the reopening of parliament. The truth is that the UN and the US agreed to keep Lumumba locked up: this signified “Lumumba’s political death,” as the US ambassador in the Congo wrote. UN leaders sent home a UN official who tried to reconcile Lumumba and Kasa Vubu. While the UN helped to destroy Congolese democracy, the secretary-general built his image of “neutrality.” His aides were to answer Lumumba’s letters for a particular reason: “I think more of our record than of courtesy to a certain individual. It would be good to be able later on, if necessary, to publish replies as having been sent before an attack” on the attitude of the UN…

At the end of November, Lumumba fled his residence to join his supporters in the east. Halfway through his trip, he fell in the hands of Mobutu’s soldiers. Urquhart doesn’t mention that this happened after Lumumba had asked for UN protection but this was refused by UN Commander Von Horn… While in Mobutu’s death cell, and after his transfer to Katanga, while Lumumba was tortured and killed, the UN made not one move to save his life. Urquhart contests that the UN force was “huge.” However, compared with the extremely weak forces of Mobutu and Tshombe, it was overwhelming. In fact, without UN military support the Katangese secessionists would have been toppled by the nationalists long before they could lay their hands on Lumumba. Hammarskjöld’s problem was not a lack of military force, but of political will. Before Lumumba’s death, the UN wouldn’t even consider measures to reopen parliament, although its mandate was to help restore law and order. The UN followed in this the objectives of Washington, who feared Lumumba’s political power. The West and the UN favored the reopening of parliament only after his death, when the nationalist danger was gone.

Urquhart is right that the West criticized aspects of the UN operation in the Congo. However, these criticisms were for public consumption, or a counterweight to the Afro-Asian pressure on the UN leadership to help Lumumba. In itself they don’t prove the “neutrality” of the UN. History shows that this neutrality is a myth. The UN was the most important vehicle of destroying the Congolese government and laying the groundworks for the dictatorship of Mobutu which wrecked the country.

Ludo De Witte

Louvain, Belgium

None of this addresses Lumumba's violent repression and severe political blunders. He ordered violence against people for voicing the slightest criticism of him. He was hardly the paragon of virtue and democracy that many liberals paint him as being.

Two of his serious political errors were accepting Soviet aid and then publicly bragging about his Soviet support. Given the vital strategic importance of the Congo, those actions put a target on his back. 

On 11/17/2023 at 5:21 PM, Pat Speer said:

I've gone through them one by one on this forum, and on my website. 

First, look where they are pointing. Many have claimed they are all pointing to the same place. This is not true. Even worse, it has been claimed they are all pointing to the location depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, at the level of ear and below on the far back of the head. This is total bs.

Now, one by one. 

Bev Oliver. Many doubt she was even there, and if she was she wouldn't have received a good look at the location depicted. (She was standing to the left of the motorcade, not right.) Still, even so, she is pointing to the right side of the head above and behind the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. 

Phil Willis. His testimony is clear. He did not see JFK at the time of the head shot. It follows then that he is depicting what he'd been told by his wife and daughters. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. 

Marilyn Willis. She is depicting a wound above the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. 

Ed Hoffman. Many doubt he was where he said he was. If we believe him, he was far away from the shooting itself, and only got a look at the wound as the limo passed. He is pointing out a wound above and behind the ear. He is not an occipital blow-out witness.

Robert McClelland. He is the first of these witnesses to have had a good look at the wound. And yet he said the wound was of the left temple in his first day report, and told reporter Richard Dudman, who was looking for evidence the shot came from the front, that there was NOTHING about this wound to suggest the bullet had come from the front. Now, months later, after he no doubt had come to realize he was out of step with his fellow physicians, he started saying the wound was on the back of head, etc. And yet, look where's he's pointing in the photo. Even with his "corrected" impression, he is not an occipital blow-out witness. 

Next row. Crenshaw. He stepped up 30 years after the shooting, after viewing drawings in books depicting an occipital blow-out, to say yessiree that's what I saw in the few seconds I saw Kennedy. 30 years ago. 

Ronald Jones: Another Parkland doctor. Jones has long stated that the head was a mess and that he couldn't really tell the extent of the wound. He has deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He is not an occipital blow-out witness.

Carrico. The first doctor to begin work on Kennedy. He disavowed his earliest statements suggesting an occipital blow-out, in part because he realized he never lifted the head to even look at that area. He insisted from thereon that the wound was at the top of the head, where he points in the photo. He was an occipital blow-out witness, who abandoned that position decades later, and deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. 

That's half-way. I can finish if you like but it doesn't get any better. As it stands there are 8 witnesses, only one who credibly says the occipital area was blasted, and he didn't step up for 30 years after being exposed to depictions of such a wound in books and articles. 

The amount of evidence you're ignoring/dismissing is breathtaking. Let's start with the accounts that the Dallas doctors wrote within hours of the assassination, before anyone knew what the official tale about the head wounds would be.

A few things to keep in mind while you read the accounts below: Cerebellar tissue, i.e., tissue from the cerebellum, is located only in the lower part of the back of the head, and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the back of the head. Occipital bone is the bone in the occiput, which is centered in the back of the skull. The temporal bone is below the parietal bone and borders the occipital region. The majority of the temporal bone is behind the ear, i.e., the majority of it is on what most people would call “the back of the head.” 

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon: 

     Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . . 

     There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) 

COMMENT: Cerebellar tissue could only have extruded from the wound if part of the wound was in the occipital region, so it is no surprise that Dr. Clark said the large wound was in the right occipital-parietal region. His wording suggests that most of the wound was occipital. 

Dr. Charles Carrico: 

     Two wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of the neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present and profuse oozing. . . . 

     . . . wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. . . . 

     . . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) 

COMMENT: If the throat wound was “immediately below the larynx,” then it was above the collar, just as Carrico told the WC. 

Dr. Malcolm Perry: 

     A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted. (Treatment report of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392) 

COMMENT: The large was wound in the “right posterior” of the skull. 

Dr. Charles Baxter: 

     The president had a wound in the midline of the neck. . . . wounds of the temporal and occipital bones . . . and the brain was lying on the table. (Admission note of Dr. Charles Baxter, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392) 

Dr. Robert McClelland: 

     The president was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head and a fragment wound of the trachea. . . . 

      Cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. (Admission note of Dr. Robert McClelland, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) 

COMMENT: Dr. McClelland probably meant JFK’s right temple, which would have been his “left” temple from McClelland’s perspective. Several other witnesses saw a small wound in the right temple, including the mortician, Tom Robinson. Note, also, that McClelland believed a fragment could have caused the throat wound, so it must have been small. 

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins: 

     There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392) 

COMMENT: Again, part of the large hole was in the occiput, and tissue from the cerebellum, which is located only at the back of the head, protruded from the wound. 

Compare these fresh, only-hours-old statements on the large head wound with those of other Parkland medical personnel made a few months later: 

Dr. Ronald Jones, Parkland doctor: 

     . . . he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head. . . .  

     There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted with the brain. . . .  

     The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (6 H 53-56) 

Dr. Gene Akin, Parkland doctor: 

     The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. . . . 

     I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . . 

     This [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound. . . . (6 H 65-67) 

Dr. Paul Peters, Parkland doctor: 

     It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . . 

     We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . . 

     I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71) 

Nurse Patricia Hutton, who helped treat Kennedy: 

     Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . . A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. (21 H 216) 

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped treat Kennedy, who packed gauze squares into his head wound, and who wrapped his head in a sheet to prepare the body for the casket: 

     Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?

     Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.

     Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?

     Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad--you know.

     Mr. SPECTER. How many holes did you see?

     Miss BOWRON. I just saw one large hole. (6 H 136) 

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a Parkland nurse who helped treat JFK: 

     Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound anywhere on his body? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time. 

     Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. When I first saw him—except his head. 

     Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes: in the neck. 

     Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it, please? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck. 

     Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger. 

     Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes? 

Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes. 

     Mr. SPECTER. And what did that appear to you to be? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. An entrance bullet hole—it looked to me like. 

     Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been an exit bullet hole? 

     Miss HENCHLIFFE. I have never seen an exit bullet hole—I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (6 H 141) 

Jackie Kennedy, JFK’s wife, who held his head in her hands on the way to the hospital: 

     I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972) 

Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped onto the back of the limo and got a close-up look at JFK’s large head wound: 

     Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

     Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. (2 H 141) 

Agent Hill also saw JFK’s body at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and he said the back wound was about 6 inches below the neck line: 

     Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question? At the hospital in Texas, you had seen—had you seen the whole body, or just the back of the President's head?

     Mr. HILL. I had seen the whole body, but he was still cold when I saw him.

     Representative BOGGS. At the morgue in Bethesda he was not cold?

     Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler Mortuary Co. was preparing the body for placement in a casket.

     Representative BOGGS. At this time did you see the whole body?

     Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

     Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?

     Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. (2 H 143) 

Hours later, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, after the autopsy, the mortician, Tom Robinson, had to fill the back-of-the-head wound to prepare the body for burial. He told the HSCA that he used “heavy-duty rubber . . . to fill this area . . . in the back of the head” (HSCA interview transcript, 1/12/1977, p. 3). He told the ARRB the same thing (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, pp. 3-4). He told the ARRB that there was “a large open head wound in the back of the President's head centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp” (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, p. 3). Mind you: this is the guy who not only watched the autopsy but who helped to reassemble the skull after the autopsy.

John Von Hoesen assisted Tom Robinson. Both he and Robinson worked for Gawler’s Funeral Home and helped prepare JFK’s body for burial. VonHoesen said the large head wound “was roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head,” and he specified that this hole was still visible after the head had been reconstructed (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2).

Von Hoesen added that “the damaged area in the back of the President's head was not visible as the President lay supine in the casket and that it was covered by the pillow which the President's head was resting on” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2). 

Joe Hagan was another Gawler’s Funeral Home technician who helped prepare JFK’s body for burial. He did not want to talk to the ARRB and had to be subpoenaed. At first he refused to describe the large head wound that he saw during and after the autopsy. After being repeatedly pressed to report what he saw, he said that "all of this was open in the back” while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3) When describing how the large head wound looked while the head was being reconstructed, he said it was in the “posterior skull” (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3). 

James Sibert was an FBI agent who attended the autopsy and who remained at Bethesda for a while after the autopsy. He saw Robinson and other Gawler’s technicians getting ready to prepare JFK’s body for burial. Sibert told the ARRB there was “a large cavity” at the “back part of the head” and, while motioning, he said, "It’s in the back part of the head here” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/11/1997, pp. 66-71). 

Francis O’Neill was the other FBI agent who attended the autopsy. He and Sibert wrote a report on the autopsy. O’Neill repeatedly told the ARRB that there was brain and bone missing “from the back of the head, behind the ear” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 117) Years earlier, O’Neill told the HSCA the same thing. 

When the ARRB interviewer showed O’Neill autopsy photo F3 (the back-of-the-head photo), he said, “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way,” and he recalled there was “a larger [sic] opening in the back of the head” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 158). 

And on and on and on we could go. But you brush aside this and other evidence because of your ideological rejection of the very idea of altered medical evidence. This is one reason that WC apologists just love to quote you.

 

 

Regarding Patrice Lumumba, liberals tend to whitewash or ignore his tyrannical actions and deadly political blunders that triggered his assassination. The segment on Lumumba in JFK Revisited is typical of the uncritical, one-sided liberal portrayals of him. 

No, I do not condone Eisenhower's decision to order Lumumba's death, and I certainly do not condone how the CIA carried out the order, but I can certainly understand why Ike, John and Allen Dulles, and others in the intel community believed that Lumumba had to be eliminated. 

If you want to get the other side of the story on Lumumba, here is a good article on him in the UN's publication UN News:

Character Sketches: Patrice Lumumba by Brian Urquhart | UN News

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

       There are so many forensic JFKA details-- fabricated, suppressed, or otherwise-- that I have trouble keeping track of the bona fide facts.

       I was recently talking to a friend who asked me about the recent documentary in which the Parkland ER docs described the entry wound in JFK's throat, and threats they received to say nothing about the throat entry wound.

      My friend asked me if and where "they" ever found the bullet that caused the apparent neck entry wound.

      Does anyone know?

The throat-wound projectile could have been removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery identified by Doug Horne. 

The projectile may not have been a bullet but a small fragment of glass from the windshield, as some researchers, including Dr. Mantik, have suggested. 

Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the Parkland doctors described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the throat wound, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158 n 39).

17 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I have not seen anyone comment on the fact that Ruth Paine acknowledged to the WC that she studied Russian at the Middlebury College language school. Intelligence agencies frequently sent people to learn Russian at Middlebury. And Middlebury was not cheap. I was once slated to attend a Hebrew course at Middlebury when I worked in military intelligence, but my unit's training funding fell through. 

I see several reasons to suspect Ruth Paine of involvement in the plot: Her "we both know who is responsible" phone call with Michael Paine. Her role in getting Oswald a job at the TSBD. Her family members who had intelligence ties. And her role in handing over questionable evidence against Oswald. 

The Walker note and the Kostin letter smell to high heaven, and her delay in handing them over strikes me as suspicious. 

I don't buy her lame explanation for her "we both know who is responsible" phone call with her husband. 

I have not seen anyone comment on the fact that Ruth Paine acknowledged to the WC that she studied Russian at the Middlebury College language school. Intelligence agencies frequently sent people to learn Russian at Middlebury. And Middlebury was not cheap. I was once slated to attend a Hebrew course at Middlebury when I worked in military intelligence, but my unit's training funding fell through. 

I see several reasons to suspect Ruth Paine of involvement in the plot: Her "we both know who is responsible" phone call with Michael Paine. Her role in getting Oswald a job at the TSBD. Her family members who had intelligence ties. And her role in handing over questionable evidence against Oswald. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I am in the camp that LBJ was 10X more corrupt than any official biography ever comes close to touching on.

That interview of him by Walter Cronkite where LBJ himself says directly that "I nor anyone else" can be sure others weren't involved with Oswald is one of the most important statements ever made about the JFKA and the Warren Report final finding.

To this day I can't believe that recorded statement by LBJ hasn't been given the historical importance it deserves. That LBJ statement is simply a history changing bomb shell one!

What more does any person who ever wanted to know the truth about the JFKA need to hear ( from LBJ's own lips! ) to know that there was so much more to the Oswald story than simply a lone nut case who just got lucky on 11,22,1963 and with the cheapest rifle available makes bullseye target hits that 90+ % of the most highly trained marksmen in the country could not duplicate even under no stress conditions?

Dr. Crenshaw's late life recounting of the call to him by LBJ while Oswald was being treated for his wound, was corroborated and backed up by the hospital telephone switchboard operator who connected LBJ to the surgery room.

There is some anecdotal evidence that LBJ had advance knowledge of the assassination. If he did, he may not have known many details about the plot, or he may have been one of the plotters. He was corrupt and evil enough to do that, but I'm unsure about his role in the plot. 

If the plotters were radical right-wingers, it seems very odd that they allowed LBJ to pursue a liberal agenda on so many issues, e.g., civil rights, voting rights, immigration, healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid), right-to-work laws, welfare spending, and housing.

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Why do all conspiracy theorists insist upon tossing all of their common sense in the trash dumpster when it comes to the topic of the SBT?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/SBT Common Sense

You should have asked, "Why do all these people who claim the emperor is naked refuse to see that he is wearing brand new clothes?" 

It is just comical that you would get on a public board and pretend that there is anything sensible or logical about the SBT. Your refusal to acknowledge that the Zapruder film plainly, obviously, clearly, and indisputably shows that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets is as discrediting and inexcusable as the Flat Earthers' refusal to admit the Earth is round. 

Although the video at least admits that JFK and Connally were not aligned--and that is a huge admission--it stumbles badly on other issues. For instance, it assumes the back wound was a through-and-through wound, but we now know that on the night of the autopsy the pathologists absolutely, positively determined, via prolonged probing and body manipulation, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. 

The most plausible explanation for the back wound is that it was made by a large fragment from the bullet that several witnesses saw strike near JFK's limo early in the shooting. This bullet also sent a few small fragments streaking toward JFK's head, and they embedded themselves on the rear outer table of the skull. A fragment-created back wound would explain Custer's account of seeing a large fragment fall from JFK's back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. It would also explain the wound's shallow depth and upward trajectory.

In Lone-Gunman Land, the SBT always works, no matter what, even when its own proponents contradict each other about JFK's and Connally's positions and the location of the back wound. Heck, when the HSCA FPP determined that the WC mislocated the back wound by about 2 inches, the SBTers said, "It still works if you assume that JFK was leaning far forward when the bullet struck!" Yeah, except that no film or photo shows him leaning far forward during the SBT timeframe. 

I am halfway through Chapter 2 and am already blown away. This is a serious, credible work of scholarship. The similarities between Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb are astonishing, both in their number and in their nature. The odds that these similarities are all just coincidences are too remote to calculate. Consider:

-- Both came from Ponca City, Oklahoma. They were the same height and weight. Both lived for a time in Norman, Oklahoma. Both were in the same Civil Air Patrol unit. Both were fluent Spanish speakers. Both lived extensively in Latin America. Both left home in their twenties for South America. Both lobbied on behalf of the Indigenous tribes at the Amazon headwaters. Both visited the isolated Andes mountains in the early 1950s, when almost no white people had ever been there. Both advocated for causes related to the coca-leaf-chewing habits of the Andean natives. Both exited the jungle from their expeditions burdened by a lifelong jungle-borne disease.

-- Once in South America, both worked for aviation firms serving identical countries—Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru. Both traveled into dark corners of the Amazon jungle, and both got there by flying with a dashing new love who was also a pilot. Both considered their respective affairs to be the love of their lives, and both relationships ended tragically. Neither would find true love again, while both carried the emotional and physical scars for years to come. 

I continue by quoting Haverstick:

          In their thirties, both women found themselves in lofty company. Both could count among their friends numerous Latin American leaders, titans of industry, and celebrated artists. Both had connections in the White House who were standing by if they had trouble clearing U.S. customs when reentering the country. Incredibly, the two small-town Oklahoma blonds were circulating with the intellectual, political, and industrial elites who were shaping world history, particularly as it pertained to Latin America. The Astonishing List of Similarities had expanded to encompass not only the arcs of their lives and travel itineraries but also the class of influential power brokers with whom they socialized. (pp. 9-10)

We're still not done with the amazing list of similarities between the two women:

-- Both traveled the same geographic circuit of cities in perpetual motion. Both had indications of wealth but no visible means of support. Both disappeared for extended periods of time during their lives. Both were well connected to the national and international press. Both used pseudonyms with the initials “JC.”

-- Both opposed some of John F. Kennedy’s policies. Both were in Mexico City six weeks before Kennedy was killed. Both intersected with events surrounding Kennedy’s death. Both adopted a reclusive lifestyle during the assassination investigations. 

Folks, Haverstick is onto something, and it is important. I haven't gotten to her section on the photographic evidence yet, but I see that it is extensive. 

As I said, I'm only about halfway through Chapter 2, but I am already very impressed with the book.

I was especially intrigued to read that a CIA officer posing as a DoD agent befriended Haverstick and then told her that her information on Jerrie Cobb was "classified" and tried to intimidate her from completing her movie about Cobb (she did stop working on the movie, but not because of the CIA officer). 

And, importantly, Jerrie Cobb admitted to Haverstick that she was the pilot of the mystery plane at Red Bird Airport on 11/22/63.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

31 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have the book. On the photos, the author discusses those, recognizes they are different women, does not claim they are of the same woman. What the author claims is that Jerrie Cobb the aviator was also a covert CIA operative who had cover persona named first “Catherine Taafe” and then the CIA/Cuba/Mexico City “June Cobb”, which took over true life biographies of the real Catherine Taafe and the real June Cobb as part of CIA cover identities under which Jerrie Cobb operated at times.

The argument for that part of the book is a serious argument and should not be mocked or dismissed prior to reading the actual argument. Author claims a distinctive “2” branded scar reported in news accounts at the time as cut into the arm of the cia-linked “Catherine Taafe” in an assault, she, the author, saw on Jerrie Cobb’s arm. 

On the photos, author claims all who knew the CIA “June Cobb” of the early 1960’s, and cites specifics, when shown photos always identified the photos of Jerrie Cobb, not the published photos of June Cobb, as the “June Cobb” they remembered, including the “June Cobb” of New York City of later years that was known to Albarelli. Author is arguing that the NYC “June Cobb” who Albarelli said also spent a lot of time near Tampa FL where he was and he spent a lot of time with, was actually Jerrie Cobb who lived in Tampa, and was not the real June Cobb. 

The familiar published photos of June Cobb, in other words, author denies are of the CIA “June Cobb” who is actually remembered by those who knew that “June Cobb” as looking like the photos of Jerrie Cobb.

The author says Jerrie Cobb told her she, Jerrie, was the pilot of the twin-engine plane seen at the Redbird Airport revving its engine on the runway waiting after the assassination. Jerrie told the author that it was a charter flight in which she flew a Life magazine news team from Miami, then when the assassination happened, they flew back. 

So the author is not speculating that identification but reporting Jerrie’s own claim on that. Was Jerrie truthful to the author on that? That is what author says Jerrie told her.

Then in my opinion author jumps the rails to the speculation that is being cited to discredit the book. Author believed she had figured out (for reasons given which can be assessed) that Jerrie was the CIA “June Cobb” so famously known in the Oswald/Mexico City/JFK docs with which many here are familiar. 

Author therefore didn’t believe Jerrie left Redbird again as Jerrie said, on Nov 22, but instead speculated Jerrie went to Dealey Plaza and shot JFK with a gun out of her camera as the Babushka Lady. Author’s only claim to evidence for that identification is Babushka Lady is a strange figure in the jfk story and looks a little knock-kneed in the photos from the rear, and author says Jerrie was also knock-kneed in her gait from knowing her. 

For all we know, Jerrie could have falsely told author she was the Redbird pilot Nov 22 to produce a wild goose chase on the part of the author. However Jerrie’s claim also could be true. She flew a lot including to Dallas otherwise. The Babushka Lady speculated identity with Jerrie of author is in my opinion outlandish, but does not bear up or down on the substance of the argument for the Jerrie CIA identity cover names of “Catherine Taafe” and “June Cobb” under which author alleges (with some startling arguments) Jerrie may have been operating at times, in which she had her own true identity as Jerrie the famous aviator and then at times used these covert CIA cover identities, never placed identifiably as in different places at the same time. 

Must read: author’s treatment of the Elena Garro story in Mexico City (chap. 4). A different perspective on that than previously written.

Author alleges Jerrie made millions laundered through her charitable fund set up for indigenous tribes in the  Amazon rain forest of South America. 

Closing question of my own: “June Cobb” of NYC, the one well-known to Albarelli whom he spent by his account hundreds of hours interviewing, the famed femme fatale of Castro, Cuba, and CIA, how is it she could die in NYC with no newspaper notice at the time (that I can find), and no obituary ever? Seems unusual. 

Thanks for that informative summary, Greg. Now I am even more anxious to read the book (in this case, listen to the book). 

I note that in the article Haverstick speculates about one of the Cobbs impersonating the other. 

As with most other books, it is entirely possible that Haverstick is right about some things and wrong about other things. 

Thanks again for the helpful summary. 

Once again we have some liberals who are trying to twist JFK's views into something they were not to make it seem like JFK agreed with their radical leftist position, when in fact he did not. Some liberals have become radicalized against Israel and even minimize or whitewash the Nazi-like brutality of Hamas and Hezbollah. We see an effort by some of these folks to twist JFK's position on Israel to resemble their own. JFK was not even remotely anti-Israeli. Let's read some of what JFK himself said on the subject:

          Israel is a land of many paradoxes, yet it has an inner strength and harmony which few nations of our time possess. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion observed some years ago: "If you don't believe in miracles here, you aren't a realist". There are many such contrasts in the life of Israel. First of all, in Israel the present and the past are closely linked. They are part of a seamless web. We celebrate today the tenth anniversary of the State of Israel, yet the people of Israel have an identity and history which reaches back well over two centuries. The Israelis in a sense are the oldest of people and the youngest of nations. In Israel there is a constant process of rediscovery. . . .

          The State of Israel, I have said, is armed – yet it is not militaristic. Even the need for troops has not been socially wasteful in the new nation. Every man and woman owes service to the state, and the training is very intensive. Yet this training is often combined with work on the land – with taming the desert, irrigating the rocky soil, building roads, aiding in village development and construction. The army is actually a great force for unifying and educating the people. It introduces a sense of equality and stature. It offers for many an important period of education and higher training.

          Nor has Israeli military and foreign policy yielded to the dangers of an empty militancy. On the day that the State of Israel came into existence on May 14, 1948 the Secretary-General of the Arab League declared: "This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Though this statement did not represent perhaps the whole body of Arab opinion, it is a statement which has found no echo among responsible leaders in Israel. Self-preservation, not imperialism, has been the dominant and just note struck in Israel. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/israels-tenth-anniversary-washington-dc-19580511)

And:

          I spent two weeks in Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of the Ottoman Empire were slowly being transformed under conditions of the utmost difficulty by labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939 rather than a land of fulfillment.

          I went back in 1951. In three years, this new state had opened up its doors to 600,000 people. The United States, composed of 175 million people, has an immigration of all we can take, we say, of 250,000 a year. Even while fighting for its own survival Israel has given hope to the persecuted all over the world and it has given a new dignity to those who believe in religious freedom in every part of this globe. . . .

          Three weeks ago, I said in a public statement Israel is here to stay. The next day I was attacked by the Cairo radio rebuking me for my faith in Israel and quoting this criticism from Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria. . . .

          The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been endorsed by both parties, and by Americans of all ranks in all sections. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment. . . .

          The Israelis surrendered their 1956 victory only because the United States and the United Nations committed themselves to the fulfillment of a pledge of free transit in the Suez Canal. So this is a United Nations resolution, in which we have a particular moral obligation. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/new-york-ny-19600826)

12 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Finished the read today Michael.

A very comprehensive and balanced work.

The medical chapters as well as JFK's Vietnam policies are not really my field of knowledge, so I will look forward to reviews from more experienced researchers on these topics.

It will also be interesting to hear from the WC believers on what they make of this work.

However, I certainly enjoyed the book and recommend its reading.

Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. David Mantik read the book and gave me favorable feedback on it. My views on the medical evidence are 99% identical with his views, and with the views of Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, etc., etc.--if that helps any.

As for the chapter on JFK's Vietnam policies, its contents mirror the views of the overwhelming majority of scholars who've studied the subject. Even the vast majority of liberal historians who've written on the topic, including the likes of Karnow, Moise, Chomsky, and Logevall, agree that JFK had no intention of totally and unconditionally withdrawing from Vietnam after the election.

Thank you again for the positive feedback on my book and for recommending it. 

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

These women sure don't look like the same lady to me. At all.

Jerrie Cobb

 

June Cobb

 

Well now, that's curious, because I can see a resemblance between the two, even though the pictures were obviously taken many years apart, even though the pictures were taken from different angles and from different distances, and even though one photo is color and the other is B&W.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

The constant "He Couldn't Have Possibly Gotten To Tenth Street In Time To Kill Tippit" refrain we keep hearing from conspiracy theorists is a huge red herring (i.e., cop out). CTers will forever ignore the very best evidence in the Tippit case---the bullet shells that littered 10th & Patton on 11/22/63.

You are stuck in a time warp, as if it were still the 1960s. One FBI lab report said Oswald's revolver had a defective firing pin and wouldn't even fire a bullet. BuLab concluded “the firing pin would not strike one or more of the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them.”

Speaking of those bullet shells, why didn't they have Poe's markings on them? And why didn't they have any firing-pin indentations on them? Hey? How could Sgt. Hill have mistaken revolver shells for auto shells when auto shells are clearly marked as such? I know, I know: yet another "mistake."

The fact that Tippit was shot several minutes before Oswald could have even speed-walked there is not a "red herring" but an inconvenient fact that you folks will never admit. Thus, you lamely assume that Bowley's watch was severely slow or that he misread it, that Markham couldn't read the clock in her apartment complex's laundry room or that she "misremembered" the time on the clock, and that Benavides only waited a few seconds before coming out of his truck, never mind that he initially said he was scared to death and stayed in his truck for a few minutes (as any sane, sensible person would have done), etc., etc.

Mary Haverstick's background should cause any serious researcher to give her a fair hearing. She is a successful film director and writer. She has directed four movies, including the 2008 movie Home starring Oscar winner Marcia Harden and the 2018 movie The Last Horsemen of New York starring Oscar winner Liam Neeson.

Another thing that makes her JFK research worth a fair hearing is that she had no interest in the JFK case for most of her life and only became interested in the case accidentally as a result of her work on another subject. 

On 2/14/2023 at 6:21 PM, Bill Brown said:

This is the first portion of a debate I did with Matt Douthit a couple years ago. More to come. 

https://www.spreaker.com/user/4798726/mysteries-in-the-music-case-closed

I stopped listening when I heard the nonsensical claim that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. This is not a serious argument. Given all that we now know about the case, the argument is inexcusable. It is a specious, forced argument that ignores the clear weight of the evidence. It is based on a refusal to admit that Oswald simply could not have gotten to 10th and Patton on foot in time to shoot Tippit.

When Mrs. Roberts looked out the window of the rooming house a short time after Oswald left the house, she saw him standing near the street.  

Myers says the shooting occurred at 1:14:30. A very brisk pace would have put Oswald at the Tippit scene at 1:14, if we assume he began his speed walk at 1:04 and right after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the street; but that would not have left enough time for him to walk past 10th and Patton, spin around, start walking the other way, get stopped by Tippit, have a "friendly chat" with Tippit (per Markham), wait while Tippit got out of the car, and then shoot Tippit. And note, again, that this whole scenario assumes that Oswald suddenly started his alleged sprint-walk right after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the road.

Mrs. Markham said that she left her apartment building at 1:04, that it would have taken her about 2 minutes to walk from her apartment building to the Tippit scene, that she walked to her bus stop every day, and that she had a routine of leaving at 1:00 to catch her bus. Myers would have us believe that Markham erred substantially, by 7 minutes, in her recollection of when she left her apartment building, even though she noted that as she was leaving she glanced at the clock in the laundry room of her apartment building and that the clock read 1:04. Nonetheless, Myers argues that Mrs. Markham was mistaken. Yes, of course.

And then there is Domingo Benavides. The standard lone-gunman explanation is that Benavides waited in his truck only for a matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense, not to mention that it ignores what Benavides himself initially said, which was that he waited in his truck for "a few minutes." If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open again?

Understandably, and by all accounts, Benavides was scared to death by the shooting. He told the WC he waited in his truck "a few minutes" after he heard the shots. According to fellow witness Ted Calloway, Benavides told him the day after the shooting that,

          When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death. (p. 220)

Years later, Benavides changed his story and told CBS he only waited a few seconds, not a few minutes. Predictably, Myers chooses to accept Benavides' belated change of story and rejects his original statements (pp. 86-87).

Clearly, Benavides did in fact wait in his truck for a minute or two after the shots rang out, and the case against Oswald collapses, unless one is willing to assume some unknown person gave Oswald a ride to the Tippit shooting scene. Myers is willing to speculate that this might have happened, suggesting that a person who gave Oswald a ride would not have come forward to tell about it because he would have been too embarrassed (p. 352). But why would Oswald have wanted to be dropped off at 10th and Patton?

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So let's see .... June Cobb was actually a secret government agent/assassin named "Jerrie Cobb" and not only was she the getaway pilot at Redbird Airport but also the real Babushka Lady, who may or may not have fired bullets at the motorcade from the grass opposite the knoll?

Says the guy who still swallows the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin tale. Did you even read the article or just skim over it? Or did you even open the link? Something suspicious was obviously going on at Redbird Airport, and your side waves aside the Babushka Lady with bland dismissals.

It doesn't help matters that we still have some conspiracy theorists who continue to peddle Beverly Oliver's claim that she was the Babushka Lady.

Naturally, you assume Mary Haverstick is lying or that Cobb lied to her about being the pilot of the plane that was idling on the runway at Redbird that day.

13 hours ago, Robin Finn said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/friend-secret-cia-agent-think-190000508.html?

How does ridiculous stuff like this get published?

After reading the article and the write-up about Haverstick's book on Amazon, I am not prepared to summarily dismiss her claims. At first glance, Haverstick strikes me as sincere and credible, and the intriguing references to a Ms. Cobb in released documents make me want to learn more about Haverstick's claims. I just bought the audible version of her book and will give it a listen. I might very well change my mind after I listen to the book, but for now I feel inclined to learn more about Haverstick's claims.

On 11/15/2023 at 9:44 AM, Alan Ford said:

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/15772/spaulding-jones-oral-history?ctx=baa5742ebe327533c7877c25dd91d058a76ead47&idx=251

It's quite an eyebrow-raiser.

Two things leap out in particular:

1. On the morning of 11/22, Mr. Jones says he saw unfamiliar men in the building whom he took to be (non-uniformed) Secret Service men. His assumption was that they were checking the building out ahead of the P. Parade.

2. That same morning (hours before the motorcade), Mr. Jones encountered Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald on the front ('passenger') elevator. Mr. Oswald got off on (according to Mr. Jones' best recollection) the third floor. Mr. Oswald was carrying a box about this wide-------------

and this deep-------------

The box was (to use Mr. Jones' own word:) "tall". (Mr. Jones afterwards wondered if it might not have contained the rifle.)

------------------

With regard to #2 above, cf (perhaps) this information given to the HSCA in 1977 by Mrs. Mary Hall, who had worked on the fifth floor of the Dal-Tex building:

Did Mr. Oswald that morning receive delivery of something necessary to that day's planned activities, and take it upstairs somewhere?

The presence of unfamiliar men in the TSBD that morning is revealing and important. This is an angle that should have been discovered and thoroughly explored by local authorities and then by the WC.

On 11/17/2023 at 4:12 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Hi, Michael! The book arrived today. I cannot wait to read it. Thanks also for including me in it!

Thanks, Vince.

And thank you for all the great work you've done on the Secret Service angle.