The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock! P

I think the answers to the case are self-evident.

Eliminate consideration of debased medical evidence not

prepared according to proper protocol (anything to do with the

head wounds).

Embrace the utterly consistent, properly prepared medical

evidence which shows that JFK was struck in the back and in

the throat with rounds that were not recovered and did not exit.

Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble

rounds. The universe of people with significant knowledge of blood

soluble rounds in 1963 consisted of 4 guys: Richard Helms, Sidney

Gottlieb, Charles Senseney and Mitchell WerBell especially.

Why does everyone automatically assume HBF got it wrong the

night of the autopsy?

HBF cracked the case!

"Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble

rounds."

What's the source for this claim?

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela said:

And, as far as the limo stopping, have you counted how many frames Greer is facing the rear of the limo? Just how far and fast do you think the car was going during those frames?

So, do you think that is what happened, Pamela? Are you willing to sign on... because that is precisely what Doug Horne tells us he believes. Instead of confronting this obvious point you start claiming "bias" on my part. Once again you seem to be transfixed in talking about who says something rather than about what is said. Maybe that's easier for you.

My bet is the car was going between 8 and 12 mph.

You seem to be missing my point. What would a driver do when they turned away from the road to look at the rear of the vehicle? At the least, take their foot off the gas, don't you think? How about put their foot on the brake?

I am suggesting that the time the limo slowed and/or stopped can be determined to some extent by the number of frames in which Greer was facing the rear of the limo. Do you agree?

[Cliff Varnell]

"Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble

rounds."

What's the source for this claim?

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's 1978 HSCA sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Completely-fragment/dissolve-after-contact = blood soluble.

If you want to nit pick, "water soluble" would also work.

[William Kelly]

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to post some more important parts when I am back on line.

I too really don't care if the Zapruder film has been altered or not.

If the Z-film can be shown to be for real, along with the accoustics, both can be entered into evidence as indictative of conspiracy before a grand jury.

If the Z-film can be shown to have been altered on an optical processor at "Hawkeye Works" in Rochester, then we have evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice and we know who did it and can take that to a grand jury as equally persuasive evidence of a crime.

So either way works for me.

BK

I respect your position. But as one of the few Forum members to have tangled with McAdams, Von Pein, Myers, etc, and one of the few to have actually read Bugliosi's book, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that a large percentage of Horne's evidence (and Tink is correct to call it so, in that it is evidence presented by Horne to make HIS case for body alteration, etc) will dissolve in front of the public's eyes if ever held up to sunlight.

Here's another example... In book 1, he builds his case for there having been a large defect on the back of Kennedy's head, multiple brain exams, etc. He builds much of this around the statements of autopsy photographers Stringer and Riebe. He notes, however, on page 231, that BOTH men, when under oath, said they had no reason to distrust the accuracy of the autopsy photographs showing the back of the head to be intact. He then claims on page 232 that "it is entirely possible that each man privately made a conscious decision to perjure himself on this issue." He is thereby impugning the character of the very witnesses upon whom he has built his case. This makes crystal clear IMO that Horne is not building his case around the statements of the ARRB witnesses, but is interpreting the statements of the ARRB witnesses through the prism of Lifton's Best Evidence. It makes little sense, after all, for Stringer to call into question the veracity of the brain photos, if he was so scared of controversy that he'd decided to lie about the back of the head photos.

This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for. (Yeah, yeah, I know Bugliosi is an atheist.)

A prediction: if Horne is "chosen" as the spokesperson for the CT community in the debates and discussions sure to ensue on the 50th anniversary when HBO airs its mini-series, he will have his hat handed to him, and the entire CT community will be discredited as theorists pushing interesting but wild theories holding that most everyone involved in the medical evidence lied.

This is most unfortunate, IMO, as there is clear and easily demonstrated evidence that 1) Specter and Kelley deliberately misled the WC, with Specter suborning perjury in re the back wound location used in the May 24, 1964 re-enactment, 2) Boswell and Humes lied to the press in 1966 and 1967 while under pressure from the Justice Department, and probably on behalf of the Justice Department, 3) Dr. Baden misled the HSCA about the President's head wounds, and was so confused about what he was supposed to say that he testified with his exhibit upside down, and 4) the HSCA trajectory expert not only moved the wound locations to create the illusion the shots were fired from the sniper's nest, he shrank Kennedy's skull to make his trajectories work after the medical panel re-interpreted the location of the bullet's exit from Kennedy's skull.

I just think we should go into battle against the LNers with our best evidence, so to speak, and leave the speculation over which 70 or 80 year old person's memory was most accurate to the forums.

Pat,

I'm not going up agaist the Lone Nutters, I'm taking the evidence of destruction of records, theft of records and illegally with holding of records to a Congressional Committee responsible for oversight of NANA, JFK Act and such records, and taking evidence of crimes and conspiracy to a grand jury.

So I really don't care what the Lone Nutters have to say anymore. If they believe that the crime is solved they can go home and are no longer in the game.

One really serious Lone Nutter on the ARRB, who was ahead of Doug Horne on the pecking order chart on his team, did everything he could to thwart the taking of sworn testimony from the autopsy doctors, to the point where he was fired. Taking new sworn testimony under oath is one of the things that will lead to more of the truth - and the one thing that those who oppose us will do everything in their power to prevent.

That's why they don't want Congressional Oversight Hearings on JFK Act, because even though it would be limited to the records, and not an investigation of the assassination, it will be a crack in the coverup that they won't be able to reseal or stop from expanding to a grand jury, which would kick in as soon as someone testifies before the Congressional committee that records were destroyed and stollen, as many were.

So who cares what Von Pain and Dale Myers, Bugliosi and Posner say? They'll be running around putting out all kinds of fires if the hearings are held and a grand jury is conviened, and they won't be able to stop dancing.

You want to win a debate with these guys before the 50th or do you want Congress to release the rest of the records and a grand jury investigation of the crimes and a proper forensic autopsy that will probably confirm much of what you have been saying for the past years?

Oh, and Doug most certainy won't be a spokesperson for CTs, and will be lucky if he is called to testify before Congress during the oversight hearings about his knowledge of the military records, about which he is qualified as a special expert witness.

Bill Kelly

Edited January 15, 2010 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence.

This statement is factually incorrect.

(*AF response in bold with an asterisk.)

*Well, which hairs should we split? Perhaps I should have said "there was an attempt at a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence that (assuming they weren't in on it) managed to keep the WC, the Clark panel and the HSCA enough in the dark to mislead the American public for 40+ years." I hope that you are not doubting that there was a conscious cover-up in the medical evidence.

Of course not. Why not frame the point as, "The improperly prepared medical

evidence indicates a conscious cover-up."

That way you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that there

are two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK:

1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced.

This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet,

JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors,

the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits

of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill.

2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced.

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do

with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays.

*"Improperly prepared" is a bit ambiguous and leaves room for incompetence as an explanation. It is now completely demonstrated that fradulently prepared is the true decription of the autopsy photos, autopsy report, etc. Not incompetence, willful obstructiion of justice.

And yet it is this fraudulently prepared material that holds such a fascination

for most of the heavyweight JFK assassination researchers, while the properly

prepared material is largely ignored.

Personally, I don't get it.

The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent and

consistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo

evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!)

between frames Z186 and Z255.

My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence)

but the emphasis.

*I tend to agree with you on the "not his evidence" comment. While we must all give credit where credit is due, I tend to agree with you that the researcher-centric approach to the evidence can be counter-productive. Ownership of ideas can certainly inhibit free and creative thinking.

Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate on

degraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible

unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds).

Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or

so I'll argue going forward.

*Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "degraded evidence." I think that the study of manipulation of the head wound evidence is the clearest indication of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and cover-up. So of course it is worthy of attention. And figuring out exactly how the cover-up was implemented is certainly one path (of many) to the perpetrators.

We already know from the properly prepared evidence that there was

a conspiracy and thus obstruction of justice and cover-up.

That is my main point: people have a fetish for conflicted, improper evidence

while the genuine evidence is ignored.

Of course my main point is that I believe that now there is no longer any room for debate that the medical evidence was consciously and purposely tampered with.

And my main point is that the properly prepared evidence tells us how

JFK was murdered: low back wound, throat entrance wound, no exit wounds,

no bullets recovered.

The autopsists were pointing their sharp scalpels at the CIA the night of

the autopsy, and they didn't even realize it.

[David Lifton]

"This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for."

Oh really. . I'd like to see Buglioi--or anyone else, for that matter--explain the fact that there are 3 entries of 2 caskets.

Would you care to try?

Here, explain these documented facts:

1) the shiping casket at 6:35 PM, containing JFK's body, in a body bag

2) The first entry of the Dallas casket at 7:17 (with Sibert and O'Neill, and Kellerman and Greer) --which they do not realize is empty

3) The 2nd entry of that same casket, with the MDW casket team at 8 p.m., now with the body inside.

That's what was first presented--anytime, anywhere--in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, and has been embraced (and strengthened) by Doug Horne and the ARRB.

And you think Bugliosi et al are "praying" for that?

DSL

1/14/10 7:40PM PST

[Josiah Thompson]

Pamela said:

You seem to be missing my point. What would a driver do when they turned away from the road to look at the rear of the vehicle? At the least, take their foot off the gas, don't you think? How about put their foot on the brake?

I am suggesting that the time the limo slowed and/or stopped can be determined to some extent by the number of frames in which Greer was facing the rear of the limo. Do you agree?

Sure. What you say is eminently reasonable but not necessary. Greer could have turned around and kept his foot on the accelerator when he turned around. Why not measure the car's acceleratin or deceleration independent of what Greer is doing or not doing? I don't get the point you are getting to. So enlighten me.

Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

"This open embrace of Lifton's theory, IMO, is exactly what Bugliosi and the folks at HBO have been praying for."

Oh really. . I'd like to see Buglioi--or anyone else, for that matter--explain the fact that there are 3 entries of 2 caskets.

Would you care to try?

Here, explain these documented facts:

1) the shiping casket at 6:35 PM, containing JFK's body, in a body bag

2) The first entry of the Dallas casket at 7:17 (with Sibert and O'Neill, and Kellerman and Greer) --which they do not realize is empty

3) The 2nd entry of that same casket, with the MDW casket team at 8 p.m., now with the body inside.

That's what was first presented--anytime, anywhere--in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, and has been embraced (and strengthened) by Doug Horne and the ARRB.

And you think Bugliosi et al are "praying" for that?

DSL

1/14/10 7:40PM PST

Yes, David, I think they would much rather debate body alteration over the probability Arlen Specter suborned perjury or the strange fact Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, etc. It's not that you don't know your stuff. You do. But it's that every bit of evidence you cite can be explained, correctly or not, by the familiar explanation that memories are imperfect, and people make mistakes. While you might not find that explanation satisfactory, they do, and will bank on it's success. They will also most certainly point out that not one forensic pathologist, including your fellow CT, Dr. Wecht, has ever embraced your theories, and that the vast majority of CTs--your presumed constituency--have their doubts.

I don't mean to be a nay-sayer. It's just that Horne's theories are built around the testimony of witnesses many years after the fact, and can easily be called into question. Did you proofread his book? Did you realize he was gonna use O'Donnell's ARRB interview as support for his theories and fail to tell his readers the subsequently discovered fact that O'Donnell was suffering from dementia at the time of this interview? Such a mistake can fatally harm a book's credibility. Such a mistake, in the hands of a Bugliosi, can be used to discredit us all.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, David, I think they would much rather debate body alteration over the probability Arlen Specter suborned perjury or the strange fact Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, etc. It's not that you don't know your stuff. You do. But it's that every bit of evidence you cite can be explained, correctly or not, by the familiar explanation that memories are imperfect, and people make mistakes. While you might not find that explanation satisfactory, they do, and will bank on it's success.

Success at what?

The RH series is about Oswald. It won't get into any of these issues.

It is a matter of authentic historical record that Humes noticed surgery

to the head in the early stage of the autopsy, which supports the

supposition that the handling of the body was less than kosher.

Bugliosi couldn't argue this case out of a wet paper bag, no one buys the

LN outside of the 20%ers, who need that notion for their world view.

RH is gonna bomb big time (assuming it ever gets made!)

People are suckers for the truth, Bubba.

[David Lifton]

Your post does not address the question at hand: 3 casket entries, documented by three separate paper trails.

You seem to be speculating about what some TV producer will do three years from now. That does not address the issue of what the historical record shows happened some 45 years ago.

The issue is not what Bugliosi or Tom Hanks "thinks"--nor is it about your predictive powers. The issue concerns the evidence.

The evidence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is in fact germane, relevant, and --I dare say--dispositive.

In fact, 3 entries of 2 caskets can NOT be explained innocently, as you apparently speculate.

I'm proud to have analyzed this, gathered the evidence, and published it in January, 1981 in Best Evidence.

It was headline making then, and in fact the subject of major ads in the New York Times, showing the same type of photograph I'm sure it was one of the reasons that Book of the Month Club chose BEST EVIDENCE as a selection. Doug uses on the front of his book, and with the caption "The Coffin Was Empty."

That issue has never been addressed--and answered--by the "other side", because in fact it can't be.

Its one of those key points that marks a clear distinction between the old and the new paradigm: fraud in the evidence.

I'm sorry to see that you are more concerned with the opinion of third parties (e.g., what "Dr. Wecht thinks") rather than focusing on what is in fact the best evidence.

DSL

1/15/10 12:30 AM PST

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David, Anyone familiar with the testimony of Dennis David, Jim Jenkins, and Paul O'Connor knows that your work

on this aspect of the cover-up--like so much of your work on the evidence, in general--is impeccable. As Horne

has shown, you were also prescient about alteration of the body by means of surgery to the head. Pat Speer

not only believes the Groden color-photos are genuine but that the blow-out was to the side of the head and not

to the back. How he can reconcile this with the testimony of more than forty witnesses, the response of Officer

Hargis, the location of the Harper fragment, and Mantik's studies is beyond me. I have tried to reason with him,

but it is a very unrewarding experience. I don't think that he is insincere, but he is myopic about the evidence.

Your post does not address the question at hand: 3 casket entries, documented by three separate paper trails.

You seem to be speculating about what some TV producer will do three years from now. That does not address the issue of what the historical record shows happened some 45 years ago.

The issue is not what Bugliosi or Tom Hanks "thinks"--nor is it about your predictive powers. The issue concerns the evidence.

The evidence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is in fact germane, relevant, and --I dare say--dispositive.

In fact, 3 entries of 2 caskets can NOT be explained innocently, as you apparently speculate.

I'm proud to have analyzed this, gathered the evidence, and published it in January, 1981 in Best Evidence.

It was headline making then, and in fact the subject of major ads in the New York Times, showing the same type of photograph I'm sure it was one of the reasons that Book of the Month Club chose BEST EVIDENCE as a selection. Doug uses on the front of his book, and with the caption "The Coffin Was Empty."

That issue has never been addressed--and answered--by the "other side", because in fact it can't be.

Its one of those key points that marks a clear distinction between the old and the new paradigm: fraud in the evidence.

I'm sorry to see that you are more concerned with the opinion of third parties (e.g., what "Dr. Wecht thinks") rather than focusing on what is in fact the best evidence.

DSL

1/15/10 12:30 AM PST

Edited January 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Yes, David, I think they would much rather debate body alteration over the probability Arlen Specter suborned perjury or the strange fact Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, etc. It's not that you don't know your stuff. You do. But it's that every bit of evidence you cite can be explained, correctly or not, by the familiar explanation that memories are imperfect, and people make mistakes. While you might not find that explanation satisfactory, they do, and will bank on it's success.

Success at what?

The RH series is about Oswald. It won't get into any of these issues.

It is a matter of authentic historical record that Humes noticed surgery

to the head in the early stage of the autopsy, which supports the

supposition that the handling of the body was less than kosher.

Bugliosi couldn't argue this case out of a wet paper bag, no one buys the

LN outside of the 20%ers, who need that notion for their world view.

RH is gonna bomb big time (assuming it ever gets made!)

People are suckers for the truth, Bubba.

Cliff, my suspicion is that there will be at least one documentary made along with the mini-series in which Bugliosi will attack the research community. At this point, I'd guess Horne will be one of his prime targets.

And you're wrong. Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet convinced a lot of people, maybe millions, that there was no conspiracy, and that CTs are full of it.

[William Kelly]

Yes, David, I think they would much rather debate body alteration over the probability Arlen Specter suborned perjury or the strange fact Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, etc. It's not that you don't know your stuff. You do. But it's that every bit of evidence you cite can be explained, correctly or not, by the familiar explanation that memories are imperfect, and people make mistakes. While you might not find that explanation satisfactory, they do, and will bank on it's success.

Success at what?

The RH series is about Oswald. It won't get into any of these issues.

It is a matter of authentic historical record that Humes noticed surgery

to the head in the early stage of the autopsy, which supports the

supposition that the handling of the body was less than kosher.

Bugliosi couldn't argue this case out of a wet paper bag, no one buys the

LN outside of the 20%ers, who need that notion for their world view.

RH is gonna bomb big time (assuming it ever gets made!)

People are suckers for the truth, Bubba.

Cliff, my suspicion is that there will be at least one documentary made along with the mini-series in which Bugliosi will attack the research community. At this point, I'd guess Horne will be one of his prime targets.

And you're wrong. Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet convinced a lot of people, maybe millions, that there was no conspiracy, and that CTs are full of it.

We don't have to wait until 2013 for a Bugliosi vs. Horne slugfest.

Doug & Vince - Chapter 10

VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S ATTACK ON THE TWO-BRAIN-EXAM HYPOTHESIS

In 2007, former prosecuting attorney Vince Bugliosi, years behind schedule, and with theunacknowledged assistance of numerous ghost writers—some of the most vocal "lone nutters" within the JFK research community—finally published Reclaiming History, his monumental diatribenagainst all the JFK researchers who are convinced there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, and a government coverup of the facts in the case. It was essentially Gerald Posner's Case Closed redux, except that I am pleased to report that unlike Posner's 1993 book, which achieved moderate sales, Bugliosi's publisher, W.W. Norton, took a bath, financially, on what can best be described as an overpriced paperweight, or doorstop. This book is essentially the Warren Report revisited—old wine in a new bottle, spiced up a bit by scurrilous and mean-spirited attacks against those in the research community who are convinced there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy—and the public sensed it immediately, which is why the book was a financial disaster. The publisher originally attempted to sell this hefty tome for $ 49.95, but because it achieved "remaindered" status in record time, I was able to purchase my new doorstop for the bargain price of only $ 9.95, just six months or so after it came out. At this writing, by July of 2008, it has now disappeared from the shelves.

Since copies will remain in the libraries for years, however—and because Bugliosi's name still carries a certain cachet (as a result of his successful prosecution of actress Sharon Tate's murderer, Charles Manson)—he will likely be quoted for decades by those who support the government fairy tale that JFK was killed by a man who actually admired him—a 'lone nut' with inept shooting skills, firing a poorly manufactured, defective rifle with a misaligned telescopic sight from well above and behind the President, who was a moving target at the time. I therefore feel obligated to discuss and rebut the assault he launched against the two-brain-exam hypothesis in pages 434-447 of Reclaiming History.

Bugliosi began his vicious attack on my work with the following comments about the two-brainexam memo completed in June of 1998 while I was on the staff of the Review Board:

Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever promulgated in theassassination debate, and yet one whose contention is being hailed and widely accepted todayin the conspiracy community, is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records.

p. 823

And that was the nice part. Bugliosi went on to compare my hypothesis with the more lurid stories invented by tabloid newspaper journalists, and then excoriated the officials at the ARRB for: (a) hiring me in the first place; and (for then allowing me to 'do my thing.' I would like to clarify, here and now, that I was hired only after submitting two extensive resumes in different formats, and after surviving a gauntlet of the most daunting and competitive round of interviews (a total of six) I have ever experienced or even heard of. In response to Mr. Bugliosi's concerns, the officials at the ARRB—who did not have to comply with any of the normal civil service rules for hiring and firing, and who could have 'canned me' at any time had they so desired without showing any cause whatsoever—let me 'do my thing' because I was one of the hardest working, and most productive, members of their small staff. And 'doing my thing' consisted of much more than writing the occasional 'extra credit' speculative memo such as the two-brain-exam hypothesis. 'Doing my thing' constituted a wide variety of tasks, including the following:

• Serving as point man, for a period of about two years, for the acquisition of any andall military records reasonably related to the assassination of President Kennedy fromthe Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, and AirForce; the Joint Staff Secretariat; DIA; ONI; the Army's Investigative RecordsRepository (i.e., Army intelligence); and the White House Communications Agency

• Serving as point man for all interface between the ARRB and Kodak in theaccomplishment of over $ 50,000 worth of pro bono work related to the Zapruderfilm and the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy

• Supervision of three other analysts in the processing and declassification ofthousands of military records related to U.S. policy regarding Cuba and Vietnamfrom 1961-1964; this included setting up and monitoring unique "jointdeclassification sessions" for military records attended by officials of the Army, the Joint Staff Secretariat, the National Security Council, USIA, the CIA, and the State Department

• Responsibility for all interface with the Social Security Administration and the IRSregarding Lee Harvey Oswald's earnings and employment records

• Sole research assistant to the ARRB General Counsel in the preparation for, andconduct of, the ARRB's ten depositions related to President Kennedy's autopsy: thisincluded the three pathologists, the two official photographers, the two x-raytechnicians, the two FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy, and a Navyphotographer's mate who developed post mortem photography

• Responsibility for drafting about 10 % of the ARRB's Final Report to the Presidentand Congress

So yes, the senior officials at the ARRB let me 'do my thing,' but I was not running around halfcocked, constantly ginning up conspiracy theories like some unsupervised 'loose cannon;' I was engaged in very serious work, all the time, and occasionally—on just 5 or 6 occasions—worked late, at night, on my own time, to draft memos for file (or for my supervisor) that suggested that we just may have uncovered some significant evidence, here and there. And not only did I actually perform a considerable amount of responsible work while I was on the staff, but I had the integrity and commitment to stay until the end, in the face of impending unemployment, when others with very responsible positions—two Executive Directors and our Director of Communications—'bailed out' and left the organization early, before we had finished our work, when they had a chance to use their golden parachutes and secure their futures. I had sacrificed too much to obtain my position on the Review Board staff to quit before the job was finished. I also felt a responsibility to history to finish the task properly. The last 4 or 5 months on the ARRB staff was full of high anxiety, and tremendous deadline pressure, as we were faced with the challenge of both finishing our massive declassification efforts on time, and with writing a quality Final Report—something that Jeremy Gunn had made clear he had no wish to participate in. Writing a Final Report was something that Jeremy felt was "beneath him," and so, somewhat embittered that David Marwell's departure one year early had left him 'holding the bag' on that score, Jeremy Gunn pulled the plug two-and-onehalf months before shutdown so that he didn't have to soil his hands with that mundane task. I was made of sterner stuff—I wasn't going to quit just because writing a Final Report was going to be difficult, and not particularly 'sexy' or interesting. So in conclusion, the Board Members and all three Executive Directors did let me 'do my thing.' Perhaps the reader will understand a little better now why they did so.

The tone of Mr. Bugliosi's attack on my work is unbalanced—it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully, I believe) to rebut my work, he displayed all of the worst instincts of a prosecuting attorney accustomed to making one-sided attacks against the opposition in an attempt to get a guilty verdict at trial—using a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit my hypothesis. There is nothing scholarly or restrained about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion. Bugliosi was in his most ferocious attack dog mode when he set out to discredit my hypothesis. But upon close examination, his strategy just doesn't hold up.

When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK's autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates there were two separate events, that such evidence is suspect or unreliable, and I am wrong and am engaging in fantasy. This is circular reasoning, and blatant denial—not scholarship or investigative research.

Much more disturbing—and revealing—are Bugliosi's attempts to smear me with the use of the word "insane" three different times, as well as with the use of the words "crazy," "mad," "irrational," and "aberration." This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor's trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi's book will recognize his sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit my character, and along with my character, my credibility.

I believe that the responsibilities I was entrusted with at the ARRB, and the work I performed over the course of three very busy years, will speak to both my character, and my credibility. I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition's arguments with logic and facts, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in "the last refuge of a scoundrel," has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country.

Anyone who reads only the pertinent section of Bugliosi's book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raised to my hypothesis were answered in my June 1998 research paper, or in my article about the two brain examinations that appears in Jim Fetzer's anthology, Murder in Dealey Plaza. I have attempted to address Bugliosi's objections again, in this chapter, in the course of the text, as I have explained my hypothesis. Bugliosi's diatribe against my June 1998 research paper was written to satisfy the "lone nutters" in the research community, and will also appeal to journalists and mainstream historians who already have their minds made up about the assassination, and who are too lazy—or too engaged in denial—to read the source material written by me. People who engage in intellectual denial of opposing viewpointsm often refuse to read the arguments of their opponents because they are secretly afraid that their belief systems may be seriously challenged, and crumble—so they prefer to read someone else's pejorative attack, which is likely to employ misrepresentation, omission, and the use of a 'straw man' to discredit the opposition.

The worst example of this in Bugliosi's attack is his complete and total misrepresentation of my claims about the role of Humes and Boswell in the charade they executed involving two brain examinations. Bugliosi's sarcasm and misrepresentation was in full swing when he attempted to smear me by writing the following screed in his book: ...Humes and Boswell weren't just accessories after the fact to Kennedy's murder, but part of the conspiracy to murder him. [emphasis in the original] This is what Horne, and all of the many in the research community who have embraced his theory, have in effect, accused Humes and Boswell of...[and continuing this vein of thought on another page]...the atmosphere at the ARRB apparently was such that someone like Doug Horne was allowed to pursue his fantasies to such an extent that not only was a prohibited and crazy conclusion reached and published, but it was one that accused innocent and honorable men of murder.

This is really 'over the top.' It sounds like Bugliosi here has written a very bad script for a courtroom closing argument in a television melodrama—with himself the hero, of course. Let's review what I have written about the involvement of Humes and Boswell previously, in the article in Jim Fetzer's anthology. In that article I claimed that Humes and Boswell were not the masterminds of any conspiracy to kill the President, but were simply men accustomed to following orders, career officers focused upon promotion and retirement, who were immersed in a military culture of total obedience. Once it became known that Bethesda would become the site of the autopsy late on the afternoon of the assassination, I believe Humes and Boswell were clearly given a "national security cover story," and told that the President had apparently been shot from multiple directions in an apparent conspiracy, and that they had to suppress evidence of shots from the front to prevent World War III from being triggered by the ensuing rage and inevitable desire to avenge his death by the American people. (This need to prevent World War III is the same cover story used by the new President, Lyndon Johnson, on Chief Justice Earl Warren, as I will discuss in Chapter 16, so if it worked on the Chief Justice of the United States, there is no reason to assume it would not work on two mid-grade Naval officers—Commanders in the Naval Medical Corps, professional administrators and lifetime bureaucrats looking forward to impending retirement. (Some anecdotal evidence may be useful here. I can still recall John Stringer saying to Jeremy while under oath, "Youn don't object to things." When Jeremy opined: "Some people do," Stringer responded: "Yeah, they do, but they don't last long." This is illustrative of the culture in which Humes and Boswell were immersed.) I also believe that poor Pierre Finck, who was probably not "briefed in" on this coverup prior to his arrival at the Bethesda morgue, was used as a dupe by Humes and Boswell for purposes of being able to "authenticate" the brain photos in the Archives, should that ever have become necessary. Besides, it would have raised too many questions if the third pathologist at the autopsy had not been invited to the supplementary examination of the brain, so a second, fraudulent exam had to be held, and Finck became a potentially useful witness to 'the' brain exam—but he was not trusted enough to be 'read in' on the coverup, which explains (to me) why he was not invited to review the draft autopsy report on Saturday, November 23rd, and why he was not invited to the true examination of President Kennedy's brain, held for covert purposes, on Monday, November 25th.

I have some sympathy for the predicament Humes and Boswell found themselves in on the afternoon and evening of November 22, 1963. Their actions that night, and subsequently, make it clear to me that they were involved up to their necks in a medical coverup—for they performed illicit, clandestine surgery on the President's body prior to 8:00 PM and the formal commencement of the autopsy; and they also engineered a private examination of President Kennedy's brain, followed by a charade, an examination of a brain that was not President Kennedy's, for the purpose of creating a false photographic record in support of a national security cover story. These actions obviously necessitate that they were pressured, briefed, and 'read in' on the coverup that was underway that very day, and in great haste. I am assuming that the pitch made to them was not subtle, and that it was made by Navy Admirals (Galloway and Kenney) and the Secret Service. No doubt it appealed to their patriotism and sense of duty (the carrot), but I am sure the stick was employed as well—as in, "You have no choice, you must participate in this, it is a direct order, and that's the end of it."

I suspect that few of us knows how he or she would really respond under such circumstances, immediately after an assassination of a President, if ordered to participate in a national security coverup in order to save 40 million lives. Most people in uniform, I suspect, would have gone along with those orders, given the fear and uncertainty prevalent at that time, on the day of the assassination. Humes and Boswell obviously caved to authority—and to appeals to their patriotism and sense of duty—and 'went along to get along.' This does not make them murderers, or even knowing accomplices to murder. [so much for Bugliosi's hyperbole and misrepresentation of my views on this matter.]....

....I can only conclude that Vince Bugliosi felt his entire thesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself, shooting from above and behind, was seriously endangered by my discovery that there were two brain examinations, and that the real brain photos were suppressed and fraudulent images of another brain were inserted into the record to support the official cover story. Otherwise he wouldn't have 'unbottled the acid,' and invoked such invective.

Perhaps the best indicator of Bugliosi's own character and intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) is revealed by this passage from page 444:

In case the reader is wondering, I did not call Doug Horne to have him comment on hishighly defamatory (to Drs. Humes and Boswell) and scurrilous memorandum. I would not be interested in anything further he had to say. [author's emphasis]

The Opinions of Others

Vincent Bugliosi did call Jeremy Gunn, however, on August 21, 2000, and attempt to get Jeremy Gunn to make disparaging remarks about my hypothesis. Previous to this phone call from Bugliosi, Jeremy Gunn had given two quotes to journalists about the two-brain-exam hypothesis, which I know with certitude that he was persuaded was probably correct. Deb Riechmann at the Associated Press Bureau published the following Jeremy Gunn quote in her AP wire story on November 9, 1998:

"There are questions about the supplemental brain exam and the photos that were taken. There are inconsistencies in the testimony of the autopsy doctors about when that exam took place," said Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Board, which closed its work in September. "These are serious issues. The records are now out there forn the public to evaluate."

This is a pretty supportive statement, coming from someone who I had been in serious professional conflict with for the last 6 months that he served as Executive Director. Jeremy clearly placed the importance of getting to the truth above matters of personal pique. Good for him.

The next day, in his article on the two-brain-exam hypothesis in the Washington Post, George Lardner, Jr. wrote the following about his interview of Jeremy Gunn:

Jeremy Gunn, former Executive Director and General Counsel of the Review Board, said he thought it "highly plausible" that there were two different brain exams.

Thanks, Jeremy. Once again, Jeremy didn't allow a personality conflict to get in the way of the truth.

Jeremy had been more open than he was the day previously with Deb Riechmann, and had givennGeorge Lardner his true opinion about my hypothesis.

Bugliosi then provides some quotes from his own brief contact with Jeremy Gunn on August 21, 2000: "I try to avoid reading anything written by Douglas Horne...I don't want to get into any of this. It's no longer a part of my life. I want to stay away from all of this as far as I can."

When Bugliosi confronted Jeremy with the supportive quote he had given to George Lardner in November of 1998, he writes that Jeremy said that so often in interviews, remarks are taken "out of context," and Bugliosi further wrote that Jeremy said he would "neither confirm nor deny" the quote attributed to him by Lardner. These comments by Jeremy Gunn eight years ago, in the year 2000, clearly paint a picture of a somewhat embittered, frustrated former ARRB General Counsel who acted as if he wished he had never participated in the ARRB's great enterprise. Well, for better or for worse, he did—and because of his central role, he will never be able to escape that legacy. Ifn Jeremy Gunn couldn't handle the heat, he should never have gone into the kitchen, to paraphrase Harry Truman. In spite of my occasional criticisms, and despite any frustration Jeremy may feel today about not being able to more definitively come to grips with the medical coverup that he and I uncovered together, I believe Jeremy should be proud of the national service he performed while General Counsel for the ARRB. I hope he does not truly feel any regret about his role in the Review Board's efforts, for without his drive, attention to detail, and determination, the ARRB would not have accomplished as much as it was able to. Apparently Jeremy's professional life is now devoted to civil liberties issues, and that's fine, but try as he might, he will never be able to walk away from the legacy of his work with the ARRB—nor should he want to.

Bugliosi's attempt to get Jeremy to disown my hypothesis having failed, he next turned to smearing those who have supported this hypothesis in their own writings, Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. David Mantik, members of what Bugliosi called the 'new wave' of JFK assassination researchers:

One wants to take earnest, well-intentioned, and intelligent people like Drs. David Mantikand Gary Aguilar seriously, even though neither of them is a pathologist. But when they take someone like Doug Horne seriously, and accept his outrageous and patently false theory as completely valid, it becomes much more difficult to take them seriously.

This is the old 'divide and conquer' strategy, and it won't work. These two very serious researchers have openly supported my work because they found value in it, and found it persuasive, and Bugliosi demeans himself by venting his frustration on them. Clearly, he is tremendously annoyed because two medical professionals with 'M.D.' affixed to their surnames are persuaded that the two-brainexam hypothesis has merit, and in the absence of any dispositive evidence, in their opinion, is worthy of belief....

Edited January 15, 2010 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

We don't have to wait until 2013 for a Bugliosi vs. Horne slugfest.

Doug & Vince - Chapter 10 (Excerpt)

......The tone of Mr. Bugliosi's attack on my work is unbalanced—it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully, I believe) to rebut my work, he displayed all of the worst instincts of a prosecuting attorney accustomed to making one-sided attacks against the opposition in an attempt to get a guilty verdict at trial—using a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit my hypothesis. There is nothing scholarly or restrained about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion. Bugliosi was in his most ferocious attack dog mode when he set out to discredit my hypothesis. But upon close examination, his strategy just doesn't hold up.

Doug Horne is an able writer and this short paragraph could easily refer to much of Bugliosi's writings on conspiracy and the murder of President Kennedy.

[Evan Marshall]

We don't have to wait until 2013 for a Bugliosi vs. Horne slugfest.

Doug & Vince - Chapter 10 (Excerpt)

......The tone of Mr. Bugliosi's attack on my work is unbalanced—it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully, I believe) to rebut my work, he displayed all of the worst instincts of a prosecuting attorney accustomed to making one-sided attacks against the opposition in an attempt to get a guilty verdict at trial—using a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit my hypothesis. There is nothing scholarly or restrained about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion. Bugliosi was in his most ferocious attack dog mode when he set out to discredit my hypothesis. But upon close examination, his strategy just doesn't hold up.

Doug Horne is an able writer and this short paragraph could easily refer to much of Bugliosi's writings on conspiracy and the murder of President Kennedy.

clusio

During two tours in Detroit Homicide I reached the conclusion that people who jump to conclusions usually end up landing on their posterior. I don't have time at the present to read Doug's work so I haven't bought it but I will. I would suggest that people read it several times before getting overly excited about what's there. Remember he's on our side! Do I hae my ownv opinions about who were behind the JFK homicide? Yup, but as long as some one thinks the Warren Commission was a fraud I'll treat him with kindness without all these paranoid accusations and if some one agrees with the WC I've found its possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Unfortunately, ego often trumps common sense when it turns the subject of what happened to JFK.

I've written three controversial books on ammunition perfromance and tell people they can do one of three things with my effortis:

1.accept it

2. reject it

3. or be like my wife and ignore it.

Civility has become an endangered species

Edited January 15, 2010 by Evan Marshall