Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

Quoting Cliff Varnell:

QUOTE:

"I never claimed they used the phrase "blood soluble," but that is clearly what they were driving at. They had entrance wounds with no corresponding exits, no bullets, and they clearly posed the possibility JFK was hit with an exotic round that "dissolves after contact."

Further, one of the FBI guys followed through and began to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose, but the inquiry was diverted by the news of the Magic Bullet.

UNQUOTE

This is incorrect--not just incorrect, but just plain ridiculous. There is no evidence to support the thesis that Sibert/O'Neill (as straight as straight-arrows can be) called the FBI Lab in pursuit of such a hypothesis--in your words, "to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed." And: "SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose."

There is no FBI record or memorandum to that effect; further, I spoke with Sibert personally, and at length, circa 1991, and he never said any such thing. The same is true of an associate of mine (Sean Fetter). How you divine such a purpose is beyond me.

How you missed this is beyond me.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(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 sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(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)

Where do you think the whole discussion of "ice bullets" came from?

The Sibert/O'Neill phone call to the FBI Lab occurred as a direct result of SS Agent Kellerman (who apparently knew of the delivery of the stretcher bullet to the FBI Lab) to call the Bureau.

In other words, Humes had a wound without a bullet; Kellerman then played the "missing card" (a bullet without a wound) and Humes then made the call.

Actually, Humes had two wounds without a bullet. Wasn't he informed of the throat wound the night of the autopsy?

Suddenly: Humes had a bullet for the puzzle of the "wound without a bullet."

No exotic weaponry--but plenty of grounds for suspecting contrivance, and theatrics, on the part of Kellerman, and perhaps Humes, too.

I call a bullet that dissolves after contact with the body "exotic." You can call it anything you want, David, doesn't change what the two FBI men wrote in their affidavits for the HSCA.

In courses on screenplay writing, its called a "Hollywood moment," when the phone suddenly rings. Here, we have a variation of that same idea: a "Hollwyood moment" when a key Secret Service agent suggests that a rather important phone call be made.

What I've just described is right there, in the record: but, if you have evidence of Sibert and O'Neill pursuing the "exotic weaponry" hypothesis, I'd sure like to know what that is.

DSL

1/20/11

10:45 PM, PST

See above. And just because Sibert never discussed it with you...so what?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

QUOTING CLIFF VARNELL:

Near as I can figure it out, that leaves two possibilities: either JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds in the back and throat, or there was pre-autopsy surgery on the throat and back in order to remove those rounds.

The latter scenario has many more problems than the former, imo. While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report, after all -- the kind of extensive alteration required to remove bullets from the back and neck strikes me as much more "far-fetched" than the autopsists theory of blood soluble rounds.

Another problem with the body alteration theory is that both the back and throat shots had to have missed their target -- JFK's head -- and both must have been defective "short-shots."

If there are other possibilities to explain how JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no bullets recovered, I'm all ears. UNQUOTE

Some commends:

(1) Re: "While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report,"

(a) There is no such thing as an "FBI autopsy report". Sibert and O'Neill simply wrote a report of their observations of what the doctors were doing (and saying). That does not constitute an "FBI autopsy report" --any more than if Joe Smith made a steno record of the autopsy proceeding, we would call it the "Joe Smith autopsy report."

Okay, David. Instead of calling it "the FBI autopsy report" I shall from now on refer to it as "the FBI report on the autopsy."

Better?

For the most part, the Sibert and O'Neill report is a record of oral utterances, of the autopsy surgeons--and that is one of its chief values.

I'm so glad there was an FBI report on the autopsy. We learn a lot from that report, and a whole lot more from the signed affidavits of the two gentlemen for the HSCA.

(b ) The fact that something is mentioned in an FBI 302 report does not make it an uncontrovertible fact. That's why the years of work I did and the publication of my book in January 1981 is properly described as "history" or "investigative reporting" etc.--but the mere mention of something in an FBI report does not mean--ipso facto--that its "a fact."

Correct. I don't know for a fact if JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds or whether or not there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head, but because it's in the FBI report on the autopsy, and the later statements by the two guys who wrote the FBI report on the autopsy, the possibilities of these things having occurred cannot be dismissed.

(c ) You are correct that the throat shot did indeed "miss the target." And I have some new information on that score which should prove most interesting. As for the back wound, that was not reported by anyone in Dallas--and I'm referring here to the 1963/64 Dallas medical record (and not some hoked up Q and A by Harrison Livingstone decades later).

But the wound was seen in Dallas. In Dealey Plaza, to be exact. SS SA Glen Bennett referred to the back wound in his contemporaneous notes of 11/22/63, emphasis added:

...The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse.

At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately

upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I

saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second

shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

The bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottoms of the collars.

Bennett wasn't with the body on the way back to DC, was he?

In my opinion, it was not reported because it was not there. Furthermore, as I noted in Best Evidence (Chapter 11), Humes called Perry the next morning and--according to Perry--asked him if "we had made any wounds in the back." (And, of course, this wound offers a perfect "match" for the stretcher bullet found in Dallas).

(d) As for the bullet which struck the throat from the front: Inasmuch as we have a "receipt for a misle"--which imho, has never been adequately explained, plus the plethora of evidence of pre-autopsy alteration, I would say that the only logical explanation for the state of Kennedy's body at the time of autopsy is that there were in fact a number of acts that can properly be described as pre-autopsy "surgery".

There's a plethora of evidence of pre-autopsy surgery to the head, yes, but your evidence of throat alteration seems less compelling. What kind of round leaves a nicked trachea, a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7/T1?

That damage is not consistent with a conventional round, is it?

(e) I also cannot resist calling attention to what Sibert/O'Neill reported that Kellerman told them in the morgue that night: that Kennedy not only cried out "I'm hit" and "Get me to a hospital" (or some such nonsense) but that, ever more bizarre, Kellerman told the FBI Agents that he witnessed Kennedy reaching with his right hand over his shoulder to a spot on his back (or shoulder), thus attempting to legitimize this entry wound which was not seen by anyone in Dallas, and constituting motions not seen on the Zapruder film.

I don't think one must be Hercule Poirot to focus one's attention on Secret Service agent Kellerman.

DSL

1/20/11

Los Angeles, CA

11:10 PM PST

I like that bit in his WC testimony where he described the back wound as having been probed by Finck with no point of exit, and his bit about how there was at least four shots fired no ifs, ands, or buts.

Great conspiracy witness, Kellerman.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Kellerman told the FBI Agents that he witnessed Kennedy reaching with his right hand over his shoulder to a spot on his back (or shoulder), thus attempting to legitimize this entry wound which was not seen by anyone in Dallas, and constituting motions not seen on the Zapruder film.

Given that John Connally was seated between Kellerman and Kennedy I think it's not unusual that Kellerman mistook Kennedy's grabbing at this throat with his left hand as grabbing behind his back. He only caught a glimpse of the movement and mis-interpreted it. Big deal.

Kellerman told the WC that their three shot scenario was incorrect, didn't he?

[Cliff Varnell]

For those of your scoring at home, I present my take on the major assertions of David Lifton:

1) Pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

Check.

2) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to enlarge wound and give it the appearance of an exit.

Check.

3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round.

Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round.

4) Fabrication of the back wound.

Gimme a break. If they were going to make a wound in the back to match the throat wound why did they put it where it obviously couldn't match the throat wound?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round.

Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round.

Let's take a look at that neck x-ray.

From the HSCA analysis:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in

comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

So, whatever disrupted the area around T1 left an air pocket right under the skin at the back of the neck.

Did the body alterationists have time to x-ray the neck in order to locate this round, since it obviously didn't exit and the disruption was at the back of the neck?

Or did they have time to do exploratory surgery, as well as dressing the corpse in shirt and jacket in order to fake a wound in the wrong location in the back?

And if the throat strike was a missed kill shot, why did it leave such minor damage?

You've done great work, David, but I'm afraid it's like they say in Hollywood, you really jumped the shark with this other stuff.

[Bill Miller]

Quote DiEugenio:

"Like Gary [Aguilar], who I have had many discussions on the subject with, I believe this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull existed. It was seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, as Gary has proven."

DSL

Los Angeles

1/20/11 7:50 PST

Of course it existed ... its presence is seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. David, you have spoken to medical experts .... did you not ever ask them about the large bulge seen in the two films and what it meant? I asked and was told that it could only have been the result of the bones being sprung open .... that the head doesn't merely swell upon being shot into.

It has been an error in my opinion for people to believe that the film is sharp enough to actually see the opening for there is too much hair around it combined with the motion and panning blur on the film to see such detail. But if one simply address its shape immediately after the shooting when seen in profile, then the bulge can scientifically been seen for what it was - the result of avulsed bones sprung open.

Bill Miller

[David Josephs]

Bill - It would be interesting to hear what these same doctors think of what is shown on the Z film... Great question.

Have/Had they even been shown this evidence?

But I would like to understand how this bullet which basically disintegrated, blow out the back of the head.

I started a thread asking that same question and concluding that there HAD to be more than one head shot if both front and back get blown out. Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear?

And one more example of the SIDE OF THE HEAD versus the BACK OF THE HEAD

It is amazing the contrast in location between BOH and SOH

[David G. Healy]

Not sure what you mean, David.

If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

It's ok, Pat ... David also doesn't know what he means. And please do not give him a list to do for he needs to stay focused on getting that request made to have an expert of his choice to examine the Zfilm at the NARA so to put an end one way or another to the alteration debate. Wish all the years we have been waiting for him to get it together that I am sure he is almost finished, but a list afterward might be nice.

Oh Willie, when you need a boost you always show up on my doorstep to whine about old-ish being the only person you defenders of the 11-22-63 Dealey Plaza film photo record have to convince the Zapruder Film (currently stored at NARA) is in fact, the ORIGINAL.

All this hesitation on your part to clear up this simple matter is beyond pale.... and it's so simple to do -- Surely, it makes not only me to wonder why you need this protracted controversy... What's up Wild Bill?

The simple fact remains, for ten years you haven't convinced anyone that your photo analysis trumps anyone elses! Especially those of us that make/made a living working with composite film-photo-video imagery.... Zapruder film authenticity-legitimacy is under sever challenge, books have been written on this very subject (is that the list you're talking about?).

Having Bob Groden tell YOU anything different makes one question: why YOU, toots.

Carry on!

[David Lifton]

Re:

How you missed this is beyond me.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(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 sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(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)

Where do you think the whole discussion of "ice bullets" came from?

MY RESPONSE: Well, candidly, I'm amazed (as Helms told the HSCA). No, I wasn't aware of that. And I admit my error. However, I think we probably disagree on what it means.

Let me hold forth here with my interpretation of this particular (which I do indeed find most interesting).

The problem faced by the autopsy doctors--specifically, Humes and Boswell, but I'm even willing to focus on just Humes here--is that they were (in the words of the report of the two FBI agents) "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets.

As I hope you will agree: "fragmentation" does not explain "disappearance"--and what Humes faced was "disappearance." Again, he was--according to the report of the two agents witnessing his supposed perplexity, "at a loss to explain" why he could find no bullets.

With regard to the back wound, and as stated in Best Evidence, I believe it was nothing more than a man made puncture. (Let me remind you that in the autopsy report, there is no mention of an abrasion collar, the legal prerequisite for a bullet wound; curiously, there IS a clearly visible abrasion collar in the autopsy photos--but that's another matter. And let me bring up again that Humes called Perry the next morning and, according to Perry, asked "if we had made any wounds in the back." A most telling question. Anyway, and back to the main point: I think its interesting that Sibert and/or O'Neill would witness the doctors puzzlement over the absence of a bullet, and then pursue the matter as they (apparently) did. But the answer --I believe--is not some exotic weaponry; rather, its simply a crude puncture of some sort to the back (or shoulder, or whereever one places that wound, i.e., that phony [imho] "wound." I feel certain that that shallow puncture was intended to "match" the stretcher bullet--and nothing more. (And, anticipating any objections: Yes, that would mean the clothing holes would also have to be made "after the fact," but that's what "control of the body" is all about. Its about creating phony bullet trajectories, after the fact, to "explain" this shooting.

DSL

Los Angeles, CA 1/21/11

1:10 PM PST

[David Lifton]

Re Cliff Varnell, Quoting:

3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round.

Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round.

4) Fabrication of the back wound.

Gimme a break. If they were going to make a wound in the back to match the throat wound why did they put it where it obviously couldn't match the throat wound?

UNQUOTE

FYI (and as you may well know): This matter of the back wound being incorrectly placed "below" the level of the throat wound is discussed at length in BEST EVIDENCE. There's good reason to believe that the throat wound was not known to exist, in the very first hour or two after the JFK shooting, because it was "masked" by the trach incision. I can't do justice to this matter in this post--see the sections in BEST EVIDENCE which deal with the fact that Burkley arrived in the ER (according to reliable wire service reporting) at 12:54 PM, AFTER--I stress after--the the trach tube was in place. So he--for example--would have no way of knowing that the trach incision was OVER a bullet wound (unless someone told him). And,as I recall, his 11/23/63 report reflects that same state of ignorance, i.e., that same error.

Anyway, if you will read the very detailed and careful discussion of this matter in BEST EVIDENCE, I hope you will modify your "gimme a break" position, and realize that the misplacement of that back wound may in fact provide important information to who was involved in altering the body. Of course, that "error" was corrected by, say, 2 AM, and if you will carefully examine what witness Richard Lipsey says he heard the doctors saying,you will immediately see an entirely different wound pattern than what Sibert and O'Neill witnessed, and recorded, earlier.

DSL

1/21/11; 1:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Daniel Gallup]

Bill - It would be interesting to hear what these same doctors think of what is shown on the Z film... Great question.

Have/Had they even been shown this evidence?

But I would like to understand how this bullet which basically disintegrated, blow out the back of the head.

I started a thread asking that same question and concluding that there HAD to be more than one head shot if both front and back get blown out. Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear?

And one more example of the SIDE OF THE HEAD versus the BACK OF THE HEAD

It is amazing the contrast in location between BOH and SOH

David, exactly when was that photo taken? I always worry about memory failures, especially when the government autopsy report places an exit wound somewhat where Doris Nelson is putting her hand. I cannot find anything she said or wrote contemporaneously. In fact I would argue that she is indeed inaccurately placing her hand. Why? Anecdotal comments by physicians and nurses place the exit wound in the occiput. Before the ARRB Audrey Bell asked Perry where the head wound was, and Perry turned the head to the anatomical left, so that she could see the right rear posterior wound, which she described as occipital in both her oral remarks and in her drawings (from p. 166 First On the Scene by Brad Parker). As I have stated before, an action like Perry is something a nurse would remember the rest of her life. If the wound was where Doris Nelson puts it, Audrey Bell's question would have been unnecessary. Another example: Dr. Peters said the occipital was blown out, and the parietal was wrinkled (1966 conversation with Lifton). To Lifton: "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput and the only answer we could think of was perhaps the bullet had gone in throuigh the front, hit the spinal column, and exited thriough the back of the head..." (BE, 317). This kind of Sherlock Holmes deduction was proved to be inaccurate, but it illustrates the contemporaneous state of mind of those who saw the wounds in a way a relatively recent picture of Doris Nelson cannot. Best, DAniel

[Daniel Gallup]

For those of your scoring at home, I present my take on the major assertions of David Lifton:

1) Pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

Check.

2) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to enlarge wound and give it the appearance of an exit.

Check.

3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round.

Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round.

4) Fabrication of the back wound.

Gimme a break. If they were going to make a wound in the back to match the throat wound why did they put it where it obviously couldn't match the throat wound?

I think there is very very good reason to believe the throat wound was widened and a bullet extracted. Reason 1: Lifton was able to get Perry on the record (1966) as to the size of the trach incision. "2-3 cm," was Perry's estimate. When Lifton called Carrico he got the same estimate. Afterwards Lifton got contrary reports agreeing with the autopsy report. What is the likelihood that Perry, who made the incision, and Carrico, who was with him, were wrong, and later commentators, who very likely understood the purpose of Lifton's questioning, were correct? I think the Dallas personnel were circling the wagons. Reason 2: Clark reports to the New York Times a few days after the assassination that a bullet entered the throat downward, and did not exit. Apparently this is what Perry told him. How would Perry know this unless the bullet track was clear and even the bullet itself seen? So why a large gaping wound in the front of the throat that does not represent the work of Perry? To remove the bullet, quite simply. Maybe it wasn't a conventional round. Maybe it went throught he windshield first -- I'm no ballistic expert. I only have the words to Clark, Perry, and Carrico go on, and their words suggest bullet retrieval through wound tampering. Best, Daniel

[Bill Miller]

Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear?

I think that 'Law of Nature' that Fetzer talks about applies in this case. I have seen illustrations with all sorts of things that have a bullet exiting them and every time the bulge grows in the direction that the bullet was traveling. From tin cans, to fruits and vegetables, to wood ... the exit springs the objects outer surface open in the direction of travel. (see example below) Imagine those sprung open pieces of wood with thick hair on them and they would produce a similar view as the back of JFK's head when seen in profile.

The bone plate that came off the top of JFK's head is not necessarily an exit wound. Dennis David told me that Bethesda teaches that a bullet will enter the skull and when the bone fractures, it will cause the result that we see in the Zapruder film. The avulsion is the key and I am certain is why it was not allowed to be seen in the autopsy photos.

My research caused me to believe there were not two shots to the skull. As I have said in the past, a weakened skull being shot a second time would cause an even larger debris spatter than the first hit. There is nothing that any of the three films that caught these moments in time show a second debris spattering, nor did any witnesses mention one.

The other point as well is that 25% of JFK's brain was said to be shot out ... spattered throughout the car and into the street, but yet a normal weight brain was measured into the record. As others have mentioned, the medical evidence appears to be suspect at best because of the medical personnel statements both at Parkland and Bethesda. David, Custer, OConner all independently spoke of seeing a large hole in the back of the President's head. This is not to mention the mortician who was asked to try and fix it in the event of a casket showing. So when people try and rectify the medical photos and Xrays to their position .... it's really a wasted opinion if based on tainted evidence. There was a reason why the Commission didn't seem interested into going into the topic of an 'avuslion' when a doctor or nurse mentioned it and I am sure the reason lies in that 'Law of Nature' that Fetzer talks about at times.

Bill

Edited January 21, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Oh Willie, when you need a boost you always show up on my doorstep to whine about old-ish being the only person you defenders of the 11-22-63 Dealey Plaza film photo record have to convince the Zapruder Film (currently stored at NARA) is in fact, the ORIGINAL.

All this hesitation on your part to clear up this simple matter is beyond pale.... and it's so simple to do -- Surely, it makes not only me to wonder why you need this protracted controversy... What's up Wild Bill?

The simple fact remains, for ten years you haven't convinced anyone that your photo analysis trumps anyone elses! Especially those of us that make/made a living working with composite film-photo-video imagery.... Zapruder film authenticity-legitimacy is under sever challenge, books have been written on this very subject (is that the list you're talking about?).

Your first two sentences above need to be decoded .... Zavada wasn't mentioned, nor was he the issue.

Your last sentence is illogical. My position is that Zavada is the best person to answer that question, thus I yield to his expertise. The duty of checking his work falls on those who do not trust his findings. Someone like yourself, who for over the past decade has complained about needing the Zapruder film re-examined so to put the matter to rest, is the one that must make the request upon finding an expert that you feel is qualified and truthworthy enough to do the examination so that YOU are satisfied with the results. Then when another doubter comes along and says he doesn't trust Zavada or Healy's expert .... we can tell him or her to find an expert that they will believe and have their expert examine the film by making a request to the NARA. This is the way things are done, David ... surely you aren't going to do all the leg work for every screwball who writes what you did above by wanting someone else to do their work.

Now how is that request to the NARA doing ... do you have an expert in mind that you'll be satisfied with?

Bill

Edited January 21, 2011 by Bill Miller

[David Lifton]

Corroborating the point you're making above (addressing Dan Gallup):

When I visited Nurse Bell in Dallas in December, 1982—when I had just received the autopsy photographs—I showed them to her and she emphasized that they did NOT show the head wound that she had seen. Further, she emphasized how far back on President Kennedy’s head that wound was located. Rather than repeat from memory what she told me, I'll just quote the Afterword to the Carrol and Graf edition of BEST EVIDENCE, which was prepared by using the tape recording of that in-person interview:

NOW QUOTING

Audrey Bell was emphatic on the same point The wound she saw was so localized at the rear that, from her position on the right hand side, with Kennedy lying face up, she couldn't see ANY damage. She described walking into the [emergency] room, seeing Kennedy face up on the car, and expressing puzzlement to Dr. Perry: "Where was the wound?" [was what she communicated to Perry]. Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound." UNQUOTE

When I interviewed Audrey Bell in 1989, on camera, with a professional camera crew, we went through the same incident again.

I fail to understand how Pat Speer (or anyone else) can maintain that there was a hole in the top of Kennedy's head, one-half foot across (per the Boswell diagram) that was unseen at Parkland Hospital. As far as I'm concerned, that's not just a "weak" hypothesis—its a completely absurd and untenable argument. Yet that's the kind of argument or “explanation” that's at the basis of the viewpoint of Pat Speer (and/or Aguilar and/or DiEugenio, who basically parrots whatever Aguilar says). All these folks—in rejecting body alteration—subscribe to the notion that the Dallas doctors and nurses simple observed the posterior portion of a much larger wound. This is their way of denying the reality of body alteration. And that's unfortunate, because "body alteration"—more accurately state, “wound alteration”—is the path to the broader concept of "fraud in the evidence," and "fraud in the evidence" provides the closest thing to a straight-line path to the political heart of the matter: that the “lone assassin theory” is a false (and contrived) construct built on fraudulent evidence. But that explanation, in turn, is the reason why the transition from Kennedy to Johnson was not the "ordinary transition" that might occur if a "lone nut" had actually shot the President, but a transition that was sold to the American people based on a false story about Kennedy's murder.

In other words, those who fail to address the issue of "fraud in the evidence" (and this is a position that is shared by both myself and Doug Horne) trivialize the debate by reducing it to a quibble about bullet trajectories, and the firing position of this or that shooter, rather than addressing the broader political picture and implications that follow from falsified evidence—the "evidence" in this case being the most important evidence of all: the body the murdered President.

If you caught someone adding zeros to a check in the middle of an escrow concerning the purchase of a house—behavior that clearly indicated you were dealing with a fraudster—would you then say, "Oh, just correct the amount, and sign your initials here," and I'll still buy the house; or, would you call off the transaction?

I am sometimes amazed when I watch debates on this topic, and observe various people trying to twist and turn and wiggle this way and that, attempting to deny the basic thesis that JFK’s wounds were altered, prior to autopsy. Let me return, for a moment, to the Audry Bell interview, as quote in my 1983 Afterword.

AUDREY BELL – AND THE THROAT WOUND

After we thoroughly discussed the head wounding, we turned to the wound at the front of the throat—which, in the Bethesda autopsy, was initially called a "tracheotomy incision." Here's what Audrey Bell said—and remember, this is December 1982—29 years ago, and again, I quote from my Foreword:

QUOTE:

On the subject of the tracheotomy incision shown in the photographs, Ms. Bell was equally firm. "Looks like somebody has enlarged it," she said. "You don't make trachs that big. Not when you've got as much experience as Perry has. If you've got a brand-new intern, who has never done one before, you may get one botched up and get it too big. But not when you've got a man of Perry's experience doing one. UNQUOTE

And remember what Dr. Perry told me when I first interviewed him, on the phone, on October 27, 1966. Presenting myself as a student in Wesley Liebeler's UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Report (which was then receiving national publicity, since Epstein and Lane’s books had just been published), I said I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy incision, because that was an example of a "fact" that had not been ascertained by the Warren Commission, and the good professor wanted us to gain some experience in fact-finding. Perry was very nice to me. How long, I asked him, was the incision: "two to three centimeters" he replied, quite assuredly. Instead of recollecting any more from memory, let me turn to my own book, and quote what happened during this conversation, because it was written about 1979:

QUOTING FROM CHAPTER 10 of BEST EVIDENCE:

"So do you recall, perhaps, how large the incision was?"

Dr. Perry didn't hesitate a moment. "Two to three centimeters," he replied.

As I talked to Dr. Perry, I had opened volume 3 of the 26 volumes, containing his Warren Commission testimony. As Perry replied, I scrawled "2-3 cm" in the margin." UNQUOTE

I of course was very aware that the Bethesda autopsy described it as "6.5 cm" and also stated that it had "widely gaping irregular edges; further, that when he was under oath, before the Warren Commission, Humes had testified its length was "7 - 8 cm".

At that point, I played what I can will call here a "Columbo" game (after the TV show Columbo, which was quite popular at the time). Adopting the most naïve and innocent tone I could manage, under the circumstances, I asked Dr. Perry if it might have been larger, going up in one-half centimeter increments, in order to see what his reaction would be. Again, just read what I wrote in chapter 10 of Best Evidence. Perry grew increasingly uncomfortable when I even reached 4 centimeters, telling me it didn't have to be that large and noting that it was "a basic tenet of surgery" not to make an incision longer than it had to be.

Within a few days, I made the decision to call ALL the Dallas doctors that I could, and ran out and purchased a recorder—a reel-to-reel machine and the first tape recorder I ever owned—and hooked it up to my phone. By that point, I was keenly aware (from attending Liebeler’s class) that I wanted to create evidence, a historical record. You can read about the rest of my subsequent interviews in Chapter 11 of BEST EVIDENCE ("The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda").

The very next doctor I called, Dr. James Carrico, answered the same question as to length: "between two and three centimeters." When I told Carrico that the autopsy testimony was that the incision was "7 - 8 cm." he responded, "Jimminy Christmas. . . it would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance" (Ch. 10, BEST EVIDENCE).

But my favorite quote of all comes from Dr. Pierre Finck, who testified at the 1969 Shaw trial. Surely everyone knows (by now) that—as world class forensic pathologist Dr. Milton Halperin explained in his book (“Where Death Delights”)—the original bullet wound SHOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE along the edges of the trach incision. Yet the autopsy report makes no mention of this: Questioned about this, Dr. Finck responded by saying he had examined the throat incision carefully, he could see no trace of it, and then, asked to explain its absence, replied: "I don't know why it is not there." (Dr. Humes, as I wrote, was "almost apologetic" about the situation. Questioned by McCloy on the same point—whether he could see any evidence of the Dallas wound—Humes replied: "Unfortunately, not that we could ascertain, sir." (And, in the interest of brevity, I am skipping over the fact that the autopsy photographs show such what appears to be “the wound”—which of course is absurd, unless the pictures reflect the body after it was hoked up to show something, at the time of photography, that was not present at the time Dr. Finck examined the wound. But that is another matter).

Of course, this is the same wound that O'Connor described to me repeatedly as an awful ugly gash—again, not reflected in the autopsy report. And, with the brain absent—another issue—O’Connor said, in all innocence (and this was at this home in Florida, in October, 1980), that he was puzzled: because “you wouldn’t do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain.”

The point I'm making here—in diverting the focus from the head wound, to the throat wound—is that, when considering the issue of body alteration (in its totality) there's not only evidence of head wound alteration, but there's ALSO evidence of throat wound alteration. So it should not be too difficult for anyone thinking conceptually, when addressing this situation, to grasp the larger idea that what we're dealing with, here, is the alteration of the wounds --i.e., the entire wound pattern—on Kennedy's body to fabricate a false story of his death.

Yet people like Aguilar and Cranor—who are then quoted by DiEugenio, as if they have some God-like status—try to blur the difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations.

Yet here is Aguilar, attempting to have it both ways, in email correspondence with a supporter of my work (in 1998):

QUOTE:

Please don't misconstrue. I WILL NOT, nor have I EVER, claimed I can prove there was NOT body alteration. UNQUOTE.

This is the same Aguilar who, in March, 2001, was screaming and yelling at me, hurling expletives and the “F” word, telling me that if I dared show my face in San Francisco, at a meeting that he was conducting at “my hospital,” he would call the police and have me arrested.

And then there is his adoring buddy, Milicent Cranor, who was (initially, back around 1995) truly amazed at my Perry and Carrico interviews (and the fact that, with the exception of Perry, were all recorded) then got real ugly--on a personal level--and attempted to report me to the Los Angeles Police Department, as having been someone who was "stalking" her. (And who, in another case, that almost went to court, accused someone who is a well known Kennedy researcher, of being involved in child abuse!)

Clearly, there is—in these two cases—a very strong personal element involved in the rejection of my work. (And I'm supposed to take these people seriously?)

THE LARGER POLITICAL ISSUE

Returning to the head wounds, and to Pat Speer and others: besides the anatomic evidence of body alteration, there is also the clear evidence of interception—and here I'm referring to the fact that the body arrived in a different coffin, and in a body bag.

Absent this evidence, someone might say: “But surely, when considering body alteration, no such thing could have occurred, because there was no ‘element of opportunity.”” But in fact, and to the contrary, BEST EVIDENCE lays it out, and most clearly: there is indeed serious evidence of a covert interception of President Kennedy’s body, or it would not have been delivered to Bethesda Naval Hospital, in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket. All of that is not only laid out—chapter and verse—in BEST EVIDENCE, I was able to get financing, and conducted critical filmed interviews of these witnesses in October, 1980, just prior to publication (in Jan 1981). I then utilized those interviews throughout my book tours, in January, 1981, and subsequently, and released them as the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO.

The point I’m making is that these concepts—wound alteration and interception—are interconnected—they are different aspects of the same phenomenon; and the common denominator is fraud in the evidence.

In my opinion, and with regard to those who quibble with the head wound evidence, and make up excuses for the Dallas/Bethesda differences (and then behave similarly in the area of throat wound), and then also ignore the evidence of interception--they are simply confusing matters, refusing to face the larger issue, and obstructing the debate.

Returning again to the situation of a real estate transaction: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is where the path leads; and that, ultimately is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, Revised and edited, 12:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 22, 2011 by David Lifton