Jump to content

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Michael, Sure. One way is to go to http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30,

"Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?", where you will find it following David Mantik's study

of the X-rays. It is also accessible via my blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and, of course, as part of

the "Costella Combined Cut", which is archived at assassinationscience.com. Perhaps Jack White may

be inclined to contribute a blow-up. Thanks for asking.

James,

I happen to own a copy of "Murder in Dealey Plaza",but unfortunately do not own a copy of "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax".Is there any chance of producing an enlargement of Zapruder frame 374 for the forum? It would be very much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Or someone might have found Sibert and O'neils report of surgery to the head, but we all know that someone was David Lifton.....

Paul Hoch deserves credit for being the first researcher to obtain the Sibert and O'Neil report from the National Archives. (Best Evidence, Pages 101-102, Macmillan 1980)

Indeed, and if you read Doug Horne's IARRB you will find that Sibert and O'Neil, unlike most eyewitnesses, were eager to testify under oath, and did so faithfully, and like Dr. Finck, were led astray by SS Agent Kellerman, kept in a waiting room when they were ordered to attend to the body, which was being altered by pre-autopsy surgery.

Doug Horne takes the S & O Report much further, and their ARRB testimony goes beyond what's in their report.

Paul Hoch also refrained from mentioning the quote in their report that mentions "surgery to the head" before the autopsy began.

Now that we have both the original report and their additional ARRB testimony, I would think that what they had to say would be significant, and it is.

Now what does Paul Hoch have to say today?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a more profound difference between Josiah Thompson and myself (and probably many others) who have researched this case. And that is his apparent inability to believe (or unwillingness to believe) that evidence could be planted in advance to promote a completey false story of the assassination. This goes beyond the question of whether a rifle and three shells could be placed in the vicinity of a sniper's nest. This goes to the question of whether it could be planned, in advance, to falsify the autopsy.

This became most apparent to me when I appeared with Thompson (and others) on a Chicago radio station WLUP on April 3, 1993, hosted by one Steve Dahl, in connection with what was called the "Midwest Symposium" on the assassination, organized by one Doug Carlson. Appearing on the program, in addition to Thompson and myself, were Gus Russo and Robert Tannenbaum. About a year ago, I was able to obtain a tape of the show, from JFK researcher Rick Anderson, who happened to have recorded it.

David, you might be interested to know that one of your opponents in the medical debate at the symposium was Dr. Michael West, a devotee of Dr. Lattimer's, and that he has since been exposed as a murderous fraud.

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

Then came Dr. Michael West, reciting more stuff from Lattimer's book, and showing a film he'd made supporting the single-bullet theory.

Well, what happened to Dr. West, you might ask?

The 1998 book Tainting Evidence notes that Dr. West was a forensic dentist from Mississippi who, up through 1996, appeared as a scientific expert more than 60 times in 10 states. The book notes further that other medical examiners began testifying against West when it became clear that he was seeing marks on bodies that others failed to see, and that at least 20 of his appearances were in murder cases in which a suspect's life lay in the balance. The 2008 book Forensics Under Fire fills out the story, and uses West as a case study of an expert gone awry. On multiple occasions, Dr. West testified that he saw bite marks on murder victims unseen by the pathologists at autopsy, and then matched these marks to the teeth of the police department's #1 suspect. Despite West's claims that a special blue light he'd personally developed had allowed him to reach these conclusions, the "science" of this light was never quite established. As a result other experts began to question West's conclusions, and he gradually fell out of favor. Within a year of his presentation at the 1993 Symposium, in fact, Dr. West was pressured into leaving the international Association of Identification and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He was also suspended by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. As a result, the convictions of two men against whom he'd testified were overturned, and the charges against still another were dropped. Word rapidly got out that his word was suspect. His court appearances dropped off considerably. In 2008, after the arrest of a man who'd admitted killing two toddlers in the early nineties, the lawyers for the two men previously convicted of these crimes--after West had testified that he'd found their bite marks on the victims--called for West's arrest. Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that examines questionable convictions and has won the exoneration of more than 200 inmates, declared in an ABC News report that West was "a criminal" and that he'd "deliberately fabricated evidence and conclusions which were not supported by the evidence, the data or the rules of science." Neufeld then explained "If you fabricate evidence in a capital murder case, where you know that if the person's convicted they are going to be executed — as far as I'm concerned that's the crime of attempted murder.'' He then concluded "These are not cases of sloppy forensic science. This is intentional misconduct. It's fabricated evidence to send people to death row.''

Pretty harsh words. Provocative words. Still, even though Neufeld's charges would seem a clear case of libel (should he not have been telling the truth), West refused to respond to his charges. West did, however, tell CBS' Steve Kroft that he stood by his prior testimony, and that if the DNA evidence implicated someone other than the defendants in the rapes and murders of the children they'd been convicted of killing, it meant only that someone else had raped and killed the children after the defendants had bitten them. Not willing to give an inch, West even stood by his absurd testimony that one of the defendants had bitten his victim 19 times--using only his upper teeth!

And from there things only got worse for wild, wild, West. In February 2009, Reasononline posted links to a 1993 video of West (http://reason.com/news/show/131527.html) rubbing a suspect's dental impressions on the cheek of a dead child. Finding bite marks on the cheek, curiously, allowed prosecutors to charge the man responsible for her apparently accidental death with deliberation, and this, in turn, allowed them to seek the death penalty. After seeing this video, Dr. Michael Bowers, a dentist and medical examiner for Ventura County, California, broke ranks with his colleague and told Reasononline that marks appeared on the young girl's cheek after West rubbed the suspect's dental impressions on her cheek because "Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods...You never jam a plaster cast into a possible bite mark like that. It distorts the evidence. You take a photograph, or if there are indentations, you take an impression. But you don't jam plaster teeth into them."

Dr. David Averill, a former President of The American Board of Forensic Odontology, concurred with this appraisal. He told Reasononline "The video is troubling. I don't know how you can explain where those marks come from. And there's just no justification for him to push the cast into the skin like that...That isn't an acceptable way to perform a bite mark analysis."

But that wasn't the end of it. The writer of the article, Radley Balko, reported that Forensic Odontologist Richard Souviron, who'd served as an expert for the defendant, Jimmie Duncan, was never shown the video prior to Duncan's trial and conviction, and had signed a new affidavit claiming the video showed "'Dr. West, violently and repeatedly, forcing a mold of Jimmie Duncan's teeth into Ms. Oliveaux's right cheek. In doing so, Dr. West creates a mark that was not previously present. Dr. West's behavior and methods are absolutely not supported by any scientific standards or protocol.' Souviron added in the affidavit that hospital photographs show that 'none of the marks were present when Ms. Oliveaux was at the hospital,' and that the abrasions that Reisner testified about for the prosecution 'were created by the flagrant misconduct of Dr. Michael West.'"

Is it any wonder then that single-assassin theorists have stopped citing West as an authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct. I quoted Josiah Thompson on the April 1993 WLUP talk show not so that it would provide him an opening to drag Cyril Wecht (of all people) into this discussion, but because on that program, Josiah Thompson, in his own words, he revealed what I believe to be (and what you have correctly cited as) a key flaw (if not THE key flaw) in his OWN analytical abilities: either his unwillingness (or inability) to consider a sophisticated plot that ran on a scenario.

As for Cyril Wecht, anyone interested in pursuing that subject should read Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, "The X-Rays and Photographs: Circa 1971-72". This chapter --which has not lost its relevance, at all--relates my experiences with Wecht in August, 1972, when--at his invitation--I flew from Los Angeles to Pittsburgh and functioned as both his assistant and "medical briefer" on the issue of the X-Rays and photographs. By way of background: the 5-year "blackout" period on the X-rays and photographs had expired, and Dr. Lattimer, a lone nutter (if there ever was one) was the first to go in, and examine this evidence. Then Wecht was given permission.

The chapter recounts in detail what happened. First of all, Wecht had not read any of the briefing materials, materials that I (and a group of learned people at UCLA) had spent weeks preparing, and putting inside large notebooks. He just hadn't had the time. Second, once we were underway on this memorable journey, it was clear that Wecht had a propensity to shout and scream at people, and there was one instrance in which he was almost run over by an Army car on Pennsylvania avenue. (Yes, seriously. Read the chapter). Third, once on the scene, it was apparent that Wecht could not read the X-rays. (Standing just outside the door to the room where he was conducting his examine, I had to tie a string with a knot at the 100 mm mark so he could locate, on the X-ray, what was supposed to be an entry wound). Fourth, I watched him give a briefing to a group of researchers (assembled in Washington) in which he seemed not to realize anything was wrong with the materials. Fifth, sitting in a taxicab, as Wecht rushed to the airport to get back to Pittsburgh, I was present as he was interviewed--very carefully, and in detail--by (then) New York Times reporter Fred Graham, and Wecht basically gave a clean bill of health to the materials; i.e., it was "two shots from behind".

But all this was minor compared to what happened next. Knowing that the key issue was whether there was a wound at the back of the head (as seen at Parkland Hospital), I hooked up a tape recorder to a phone, and was able to get photographer John Stringer on the line. The date was August 25, 1972, and we spoke in some detail about his experience on the night of November 22, 1963. Stringer described that the wound he photographed clearly extended to the back of the head--i.e., the occipital area. (See Chapter 20, B.E., under the subhead, "A Conversation with John Stringer") Of course, the autopsy photographs showed no such thing--I knew that from the Dox drawings. So then I called Wecht (by then back in Pittsburgh) on the phone, and informed him of what had just transpired. The back of the head (in the occipital area) was damaged, yet it was undamaged in the pictures he had just seen. Wecht's response was to assert that perhaps Stringer didn't know what the word "occipital" meant ("occipital is not exaclty a lay term, David, you know what I mean?" etc.) So then, the next day, I called Stringer a second time. He re-emphasized what he told me, and made very clear that he knew exactly what "occiptial" meant. "My major field is medial photography" etc. he told me. These conversations are relevant today because the tapes were provided to a news reporter, Craig Colgan, who (years later) played them to Stringer, and he tried to wiggle off the hook. Then, the ARRB used them when Stringer was deposed.

Despite all the bluster, Wecht was never willing to go beyond the single bullet theory, and the position he took publicly was very destructive. I closed my chapter with these words: "For all practical purposes, Wecht had closed off dissent about shots striking from the front or about inauthenticity. Nevertheless, he continued to prsent the public image of a dissenter. He was a sheep in wolf's clothing."

More on these themes another time.

DSL

Jan 02, 2010; 4:25 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Pamela

So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s?

What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy

Sorry but thats real hard to believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we have both the original report and their additional ARRB testimony, I would think that what they had to say would be significant, and it is.

Indeed. S & O and F/H/B were heroes on Eleven Twenty-Two.

The next day H and B were dragooned into the cover-up, which, in my

opinion, should not detract from what they had to say on 11/22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to reply. Don Thomas and I are not "friends" but "acquaintances." We've enjoyed conversations over dinner and attended several events together. My opinions on the acoustics evidence are based upon reading Thomas and reading the critiques of the evidence both from the scientific panel and from O'Donnell. My judgment after reading both is that who's right is not even a close call.

Cyril Wecht certainly knows what is plausible in terms of what one would have to know to alter Kennedy's wounds on Friday night and the difference between the appearance of pre-mortem and post-mortem surgery. Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

Josiah Thompson

David Lifton is a valid expert on the medical evidence. I am not. I am simply pointing out that the opinions he quotes as mine were drawn from conversations with Cyril Wecht. And Wecht, no one doubts, has opinions that are worth paying attention to.

No doubt Cyril Wecht is a forensic pathologist, a smart man and a great guy, but I have never seen where he offered anything substantial in rebuttal of Lifton's thesis. Dr. Wecht himself never examined the body of JFK and the reason we are all so conscious that the autopsy doctors were unqualified is because Wecht keeps on reminding us, as he did so eloquently just recently.

So even if Dr. Wecht is right that competent pathologists SHOULD have noticed post-mortem wounds, why should we rely on the opinions of autopsy doctors who -- Dr. Wecht keeps on reminding us -- were unqualified.

On the one hand we should rely on the autopsy doctors and reject Lifton's thesis, (because it is too Machievellian for US), but on the other hand KNOW THAT the autopsy doctors were hopelessly under - qualified for the job at hand.

I think Dr. THompson is a man who values friendship, as well he should, but friendship should not dim our objectivity in investigating a homicide. Over on the

thread entitled WHO NEEDS THE ACOUSTICS? I am awaiting Josiah's response to my question whether his personal friendship with Don THomas is coloring his judgment in the matter of the acoustics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record:

As a native New Yorker, and someone who knows the city well, and its media:

I do not believe for a minute--not for a New York minute (as the saying goes)--that the Zapruder film was shown at the Bleeker Street Cinema in December of 1964. That would have been all over the media, and Time-Life's lawyers would have been all over that situation within a day.

Perhaps you are confused.

FYI: David Wolper produced two films in 1964: his Oscar Nominated 1964 film was titled "Four Days in November." That was in black and white, and does contain the Nix film. He also produced "1000 Days: A Tribute to John F. Kennedy."

DSL

Los Angeles, California

1/02/2010 5:15 PM

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and

Boswell were not qualified. Finck was.

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

"If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?"

Great point, Mr. Carroll. Dr. Wecht knows what he is doing and that is why they tried to discredit him back in 05/06. I talked to Gary Mack at that time on the phone and when I mentioned that JFK's brains were on the back of the car; besides saying that there was a big wind that day from the front he put down Dr. Wecht. I talked to Dr. Wecht a few months later, he so graciously calling me back after talking to his wife. He sounded real down, but chatted with me for a few minutes. This was shortly after his indictment.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

But she didn't see it until years later.

Review Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH, pg 184:

...When I arrived in Minor Medicine, I found the patients had been moved elsewhere,

and the department had been taken over by the Vice President and his staff. They

were getting ready to leave when I got there, as they passed me, I heard the

Vice President say to his wife, 'Make a note of what everyone says and does.'

Can you imagine how Bowron felt hearing the new President tell his

wife to note "what every one says and does?"

Strikes me as witness intimidation. Bowron's WC testimony seems to reflect

this intimidation.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Pamela

So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s?

What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy

Sorry but thats real hard to believe

I did. I don't know what copy it was. It certainly wasn't the original, but it was quite good. I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...