Klein's $ 21.45 deposit of 3/13/63 was NOT "Hidell" money order

[David G. Healy]

And I do not believe he [LHO] had possession of any weapons.

Even though he had a pistol in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

...

what YOU need to understand hon is this: It appears Oswald was framed! Simple as that, all your posturing otherwise is not going to change reasonable people minds that have come to this conclusion. We've reviewed, then STUDIED what the WCR tried to sell way back in 1964. As you, your idol-worship Vin Bugliosi, and a host of other well paid lone nut xxxxx authors continue to sell -- that dog don't hunt any longer, hon.

You've got a huge problem on your hands... that being, disinfo is no longer working, up to 90% of the thinking public do not believe the WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome theory -- welcome to the real world, toots! Perhaps its time for our composite, lone nut buddy form Indiana (sic) to reel in multiple aliases and get honest with ITself, eh?

[David Lifton]

The money order was allegedly purchased on March 12th.

It then went to Chicago and was supposedly deposited there on the 13th.

Evidently Lifton did not point this out to the accountant.

In Armstrong's book, he points out this rather odd stamp. (p. 448)

My own observation is that its weird for a rubber stamp to bleed through so much like that.

As per the stamps that should be on the M.. O., WIlmouth testified to what should be there as it tracked through the system, and ended up in Kansas CIty--not Alexandria.

Because of the multiple threads on this one topic, I have been unable to locate the post I made several days ago; and so I do not know where the post (of mine) that DiEugenio is commenting on is located.

Anyway, and moving on past that point of confusion. . . :

Having read many posts on this particular thread, I am still unclear on what processing stamps are supposed to be on a U.S. Postal money order in March, 1963. Consequently, before drawing any conclusions on this subject, I'd like to see one or more money orders from the year 1963 to see just what stamps exist on the back of them. They don't have to be money orders for a rifle--they can be for pots and pans, for for a water sprinkler system. Isn't there some way to find actual samples and to see what stamps they bear?

The CPA I showed the money order to noted that it was stamped, on the back, "Paid" and the stamp appeared to be that of the Dallas Post Office. DiEugenio comments on that, and cites page 448 of Armstrong. Not having Armstrong's book immediately at hand, I do not know what is "odd" about the stamp, that is cited on page 448. He also notes that its "weird" for a stamp to "bleed through" like that. All very well, but that's not good enough. There's the stamp, and it says "paid". (So. . .am I misreading the evidence? Please explain.)

Finally, I pointed out--in the post I am unable to locate--that there are detailed FBI reports (and possibly a Secret Service report) filed by the agents who conducted the "money order investigation" and reporting on how Waldman was contacted in the wee hours of 11/23/63, and how the agents began examining the various reels of microfilm, finally locating the Hidell order (not the US Postal Money order, but the microfilmed record of the rifle order) on a particular reel of microfilm.

Viewing this from a slightly different perspective (and speaking as one who is sympathetic to the notion that Oswald was set up): I don't understand why it would be so complicated to get Oswald to order a gun. I've always thought the significant issue was that he ordered a gun that was 36" in length, but the "found rifle" was 40". Obviously, he possessed a rifle. Marina said that to the FBI from very early on--she certainly repeated it to me in our detailed 1990 filmed interview; and she said the same thing to Jesse Ventura (off camera) in the recent show. An interesting point, noted decades ago by Peter Dale Scott, is that in the initial interview, she indicated that the rifle that LHO had was not one with a scope--in fact, that she didn't know rifles had "telescopes" until she was confronted with the rifle shown her by the DPD on 11/22/63. (See the original Secret Service interview, CD 344, as I recall).

I don't suppose that anyone reading this thread doubts that Oswald had "a" rifle--I gather that the issue is whether the mail order documentation for this particular rifle is legitimate.

Now nothing I have mentioned doesn't preclude the possibility that there is something wrong with the paper trail, but I'd like to see some "money order" exemplars from 1963.

Which brings me to another thought: if the microfilm exists, and it is (or was) in the FBI's possession, might it not be possible to retrieve that roll of microfilm (from the FBI, or from the JFK Records Collection) examine it, and see what processing stamps other money orders (on that microfilm) bear? Or did the FBI simply copy one frame of the microfilm (that doesn't seem reasonable; but perhaps that is what happened. I just do not know.)

DSL

3/20/11; 5 AM PDT

Try looking on the previous page. It does not say "paid".

And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons.

I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle):

(a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews).

(b ) Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him).

(c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite).

(d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident).

(e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was)

(f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony)

(g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.)

(h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident).

(i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle)

To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin."

In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle.

I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach.

There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin."

In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy.

History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body.

That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up."

DSL

3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 20, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

To David Lifton,

Your CPA misread the back of the money order. And it's a rather interesting misreading of the stamp, because it does kind of appear that the word "Paid" shows up on the back. But that is merely the "Mar. 12" stamp that is bleeding through to the other side of the money order. The "Mar." in reverse looks sort of like the word "paid".

All very well. That was my error. In other words: I'm willing to believe that word "Mar" --when read in reverse--looks like the word "paid." But if that is so, then are we not back to "square one"? Should there not be some markings on the back of this money order that establish that it went through the banking system and check clearance process? At the very least, I would like to see what a 1963 money order that received normal processing looks like.

Its too bad that this issue wasn't identified and pursued by the ARRB, because I am sure they would have made a good faith effort to obtain the necessary U.S. Postal money order "exemplars" to clarify this situation.

DSL

3/20/11

12:55 PM, PDT

Los Angeles, CA

P.S. (on 3/21/11): This also shows the importance of going back to the actual reports of the original investigators who made a computer search which located the money order. Because if this item didn't go through the banking system, how could it have ended up in "the warehouse system" and be located by a computer search, on 11/23/63? In other words, there's an actual report (either SS or FBI) detailing how a search was made, a search which located this particular "paid" money order. That report--either a Secret Service report or an FBI report--is (I believe) actually in the 26 volumes. So the hypothesis that this postal money order is a forgery is not that simple, and cannot simply end with the notion that a document was forged. The putative forgery would then have to be inserted into the stacks of canceled money orders (whereever they are stored) in such a manner that it could (and would) be located by the standard search (which, according to the Secret Service or FBI report, is what happened on 11/23/63. I'm not saying this is not possible--just that it adds another complication to the "forgery" hypothesis.

Edited March 21, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

I know we are looking at an image of an image, etc... just that certain things are consistent and other's aren't... as I try to show earlier in the thread...

another stikes me... the "amount" of $21.45, especially the "21" is stamped very hard, as hard if not harder than the other numbers, just below that are seen on the backside.

Is there any significance to changing the amount, or why this would not be seen?

[David Lifton]

The money order was allegedly purchased on March 12th.

It then went to Chicago and was supposedly deposited there on the 13th.

Evidently Lifton did not point this out to the accountant.

In Armstrong's book, he points out this rather odd stamp. (p. 448)

My own observation is that its weird for a rubber stamp to bleed through so much like that.

As per the stamps that should be on the M.. O., WIlmouth testified to what should be there as it tracked through the system, and ended up in Kansas CIty--not Alexandria.

[snipped to save space]

DSL

3/20/11; 5 AM PDT

[snipped to save space]

And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons.

I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle):

(a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews).

( Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him).

(c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite).

(d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident).

(e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was)

(f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony)

(g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.)

(h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident).

(i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle)

To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin."

In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle.

I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach.

There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin."

In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy.

History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body.

That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up."

DSL

3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Your points (a) though (i) have a layer of what some would describe as "surface truth” attached to them and to people without a deep understanding of the case these points you make may well swing their thinking in the direction that you wish to swing it. However, if you want to give readers more to chew on, you may want to peel away some layers of the onion you are holding and include the following so they can make more of an informed decision regarding ownership of the firearms.

In Marina Oswald’s first day affidavit she mentions absolutely NOTHING about Lee owning a rifle in the United States. I will say that again, there is NOTHING in her first day affidavit that suggests that her husband owned any firearm whilst he was in the United States. What she does say in this affidavit is that Lee used to have a rifle in Russia that he used for hunting. She then goes on to say that she knew there was a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage. She doesn’t say it was Lee’s. She simply says that she knew there was one there and it was wrapped in a blanket. She doesn't even claim ownership of the blanket for that matter.

We are led to believe that the “above board” Ruth Paine, who knew when lights were getting left on in her garage, DID NOT KNOW that this rifle was there? Both of the Paine’s were adamant that they knew nothing of a rifle prior to the events of November 22nd, yet in your own points that you make (point h) you state that Michael Paine saw a picture of Oswald holding the rifle in April of 1963. Now what is interesting about this is that when Michael Paine went to unload the Oswald’s belongings into the garage of 2515 West Fifth Street after Marina came back from New Orleans he actually handled the weapon, he handled it that much that he said the following in his Warren Commission testimony:

[snipped]

Going back to Marina for a moment how on earth can we be sure as to what she said during the immediate aftermath of the assassination? As far as I’m aware is it alleged that she didn’t speak English. That being the case what we have in the immediate hours after the shooting is an interpretation of events as given by a certain Ruth Paine:

DSL reply:

This is a reply to certain specifics of your post (re Marina, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, etc.) and then goes on to discuss certain wider issues.

Re Marina Oswald's first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc etc etc--all of it can be ignored because she was simply seeking, in those earliest statements, to protect her husband. Despite their marital problems, she in fact loved him. Those reports constitute important evidence showing the extent to which Marina was willing to shade the truth in the interest of protecting her dead husband--but not much more.

It is for this same reason that she never said a thing about the Walker shooting, until the handwritten note by Oswald was found. (And if you're going to tell me, at this late date, that you think she made all that stuff up, then we part ways on a most fundamental issue.)

As to your statement that what Marina said is really what "Ruth Paine said Marina said" (i.e., that what Marina said is either "not what she said" or was the result of deliberately improper translation by Ruth Paine) etc etc.--that is also incorrect. Perhaps Ruth "translated" in an early interview, but it didn't go much beyond that. If you want to hear with your own ears Marina's very earliest statement(s)--you could order and listen to her (speaking in Russian) on the tapes that are the basis for CD 344, the very first interview of Marina by the Secret Service); or just read the transcript. I published this material in 1968, in a private edition of a book I called "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." (Or just order CD 344 from the Archives, or perhaps it is available on a website). The translator on those tapes was not Ruth Paine, but a Russian speaking Secret Service agent (Gopadze). The same is true of all of Marina's FBI interviews. The Russian speaking agent there was Boguslav. So if you are entertaining some "its Ruth Paine who said she said that" hypothesis as to why Marina did not say what she is reported to have said, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I knew Marina very well. We had dozens of conversations starting in the Spring of 1981, after the publication of BEST EVIDENCE. The notion that Lee didn't possess a rifle is simply ludicrous, and if the basis for your view of this case--a situation in which Lee Oswald was framed for a murder he did not commit--is that he did not (even) possess a rifle, then you are pursuing a hypothesis that is completely disconnected from the facts and (I might add) from reality. Perhaps a novel writer or a TV writer might play around with such a hypothesis--in which the wife really "knows the truth" but her reality is being altered because of a malevolent translator--but none of that fits the facts or the evidence in this case.

As to Michael Paine, that is a separate (but related) issue. I have always believed that his "camping equipment" testimony is very squirrely, and have often thought Michael surely must have known that Lee had a rifle stored in the garage. But so what? Even if that is so, what would it show? Just that Michael Paine is one more example of someone who distanced himself from Lee and his rifle. More important, there's no question, imho, and based on personal conversations with him in 1995, but that Michael Paine saw 8 x 10 photo of Lee with the rifle and the communist newspapers when he came by to bring him to dinner, in early April. I had serious conversations with him about this. He was credible. If you want to understand Michael Paine, you must start with his very first interview with the NY Times (published, as I recall, on 11/24/63) and must also familiarize yourself with the evidence that he very likely bought a car for Oswald. If you're not dealing with that data, then you're not dealing with the reality of Michael Paine.

WIDER ISSUES:

Turning to another issue (which is not the subject of this thread), I should like to address it anyway. I thoroughly disagree with your hypothesis that Oswald wasn't on McWatters bus, or in Whaley's cab. Frankly, I believe your entire analysis to be false, and a complete misreading of the record. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the global picture as to what was going on with Oswald after the shots were fired at Dealey Plaza. Anyone who subscribes to your hypothesis will then necessarily have the whole chronology of what happened after 12:30 PM CST entirely wrong, while smugly thinking they have found some important "truth." (Remember what Ray Carroll said after one of your posts--that you seemed to miss "the Prince of Denmark"--I thought that was an astute observation).

As to the tone of the rest of your remarks, and specifically, as to the basic thesis of body alteration (i.e., wound alteration, and bullet removal) prior to autopsy, my work speaks for itself. Most people who attack it display an abysmal ignorance of the known facts in the record if they do not realize that, with regard to the body's arrival at the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at Bethesda. . .:

(a) that the wounds were altered (both in the area of the neck and head)

(b ) that the body did not arrive (at Bethesda) in the same coffin as it left Dallas

(c ) that the body did not arrive wrapped the same way as it left Dallas; i.e., sheets vs body bag

(d ) that the body arrived at the morgue a good 20 minutes before the coffin at Bethesda

(As to proposition "d," my list of witnesses for that has now grown to about 15, any number of whom I have interviewed personally. If you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body's entry to the morgue, there were "3 entries of 2 caskets", then be my guest. (See B.E., Chapters 25-28; or, for a good summary; OR, read Jacob Hornberger's article "The Casket Conspiracy" on the net; or see Doug Horne's book).

And so on and so forth. The body is the most important evidence in any murder case; and in this one, any frame-up of Oswald had to start with the body.

The body could not be altered without it first being intercepted. The plethora of evidence indicating the body was covertly intercepted is clear evidence that something serious happened with the body--i.e., the wounds on the body.

If you find that distasteful, or for some reason can't deal with it, then I shall resort to the old saying that President Harry Truman used to use: "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

Anyone who does not understand that (and if the shoe fits, then do wear it) ends up going down an important false trail: i.e., thinking of the "frame-up of Oswald" as something that occurred "after the fact," rather than something that was integral to this crime, as something designed, and (in certain important respects) executed, before the fact.

Many of the issues pertaining to Oswald deal with matters that ante-date November 22, 1963--and that not only includes his ordering a rifle, but also moving from one city to another, his behavior in New Orleans, his going to Mexico City, the full truth about how he got the job in the building on October 16, 1963, his behavior in the weeks prior to the shooting, even his carrying a package to work on the morning of the assassination. Its all part of one "global" picture.

If one has the wrong "global understanding"--and in particular, if one does not understand the centrality of the autopsy to the architecture of this crime, and particularly, to the frame-up that occurred here--one cannot begin to grasp what happened. It would be like looking up in the sky at night, seeing only the moon, and falsely concluding that that is the extent of "the universe." An astronomer who preached that view would be told by his learned cohorts to get a better telescope.

Unfortunately, by not fully appreciating the centrality of the body as evidence, some JFK researchers--well intentioned, no doubt, but misguided, nevertheless--think in those terms.

Your posts offer a good example. You apply a 100X magnifying glass to the evidence of the bus and the taxicab (and then misinterpret and mis-analyze that data, imho) but do not have the interest (or perhaps insight) to apply the same scrutiny and analysis where it belongs: i.e., when it comes to the medical evidence, and specifically, to the body of President Kennedy.

Also, the entire tone of your post has the personal overtones of an envious writer. Lacking from your post is any appreciation, much less understanding, of the important confirmation of my work that occurred as the result of the ARRB. Doug Horne--the Chief Analyst of Military Affairs on the ARRB--worked with the medical evidence for three full years. He is one of the few people in the world who actually was present at the depositions of the three autopsy doctors, not to mention the person responsible for the deposition of other medical witnesses. These witnesses would not have been deposed were it not for Jeremy Gunn's serious interest in my work (and Horne's too).

Here is Doug Horne's statement on the matter which he posted years ago:

QUOTE David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.) UNQUOTE

To comprehend what happened on November 22, 1963, one must start with the understanding that this crime was planned well in advance. It did not turn on someone forging a money order after the fact (even if that document turns out to be a forgery--and I'm not at all sure that is so, but will be very interested should that turn out to be the case).

But all that is really beside the point.

The fundamental architecture of this murder--an architecture that implicated Oswald, by implicating the so-called "sniper's nest that was supposedly the source of the shots--was determined by the wounds on the body at the time of autopsy. In other words (and to coin a phrase), the body was the sun in the solar system of the evidence. If you do not understand that, then study a good book on homicide investigation. At issue here is not some arcane frivolous concept, but something central to the entire Kennedy case.

When I first showed the evidence that the body was altered to former WC counsel Wesley Liebeler in October, 1966 (see Chapter 9 of Best Evidence), he "got it" immediately. The result was a 13 page memorandum (which I helped research, and which Liebeler drafted) that went to the Chief Justice of the U.S., all the other commission attorneys, the staff, President Johnson, the Justice Department, and Robert Kennedy. Three of the Warren Commissioners then flew down to the ranch, to speak with Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, "The Liebeler Memorandum"). And I have certain unpublished information that Robert Kennedy took it seriously. Very seriously indeed.

But. . apparently you--now in the year 2011--still don't "get it," and so are lecturing us with your view on what is important, and what does (or perhaps should) constitute the "reality" of others on this forum.

Well, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps, if you seek enlightenment, and for starters, you should read the 1997 ARRB testimony of FBI Agent James Sibert, who talked about the huge size of the hole in Kennedy's head when the body arrived at Bethesda, and wrote, in his own hand, and in notes he brought to the ARRB deposition: "Brain had been removed from head cavity." Perhaps you should also peruse his sworn testimony about what he told me (about his own FBI report). And of course perhaps you should return to, and study carefully, what Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their original FBI report derived from notes both made in the Bethesda morgue on the night of November 22, 1963 (CD 7, 280 and pp following). Sibert and O'Neill reported that when the body arrived, the autopsy doctor said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Repeated Sibert, under oath, on 9/11/97, and in a deposition in which he names me more than once, "The report stands."

Frankly, the whole tone of your post is that of someone who focuses on minutiae, and fails to see (much less understands) the global picture.

DSL

3/21/11; 8:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 22, 2011 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

Without intentionally duplicating anything Lee wrote:

I do not understand how it can be claimed thatOswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now justaddressing the issue of a rifle):

(a) the reality of his possession of "a"rifle is attested to by Marina(from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through variousFBI interviews).

(b ) Lee asked her to photograph him holding arifle (again, this is part of Marina'sreality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this withme repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him).

It is also documented in numerous FBI interviews that she repeatedly denied any knowledge of his visit to Mexico City.Your defence of her earliest statements was exactly as expected (She lied to "protect" her husband) .The problem for you is that Ruth Paine claimed he had told the same thing to her - that he was going to look for work in Houston or Philadelphia, and that he had a friend in Houston who might help in that effort. Was Ruth also lying to protect Lee?

But let's say for the sake of argument that one or more photos were taken. Since no one (including Marina) has ever been able to demonstrate that the rifle in the photo was in fact the M-C, is it not possible that the weapons were borrowed? Did not DeM himself own at least one rifle?

I am reminded of the case of Judi Bari, an "Earth First" activist victim of Cointelpro who was photographed posing with a Uzi for the cover of an album she was making. She was killed when a bomb exploded in her car. The photo then ended up in the newspapers as a means of demonstrating her propensity for violence.

(c ) He autographed at least one print of a photoof him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that printinto a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite).

When you find it, get back to me.

(d ) Marina stuckone or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63(See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina'stestimony, about this incident).

Ditto

(e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn thepicture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was).

When you do recall, please advise.

(f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to LeeOswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They bothtestify about the incident, with Marinasaying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, butmy husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (SeeJeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony)

Would this be the same Mrs DeMohrenschieldt who testified to some knowledge of rifles because her father had been a collector – yet ( a ) did not recognise that the "dangling" thing was a scope ( b ) could not identify the commission exhibit as being the same and; ( c ) did not recognise it as a powerful weapon – to the extent that even Jenner expressed concern that she herself did not question Marina's alleged statement to her that Oswald used to walk around parks "shooting leaves" with this brute of a weapon?

(g) Lee autographed a print of that photo"to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found byDeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCAinvestigated and documented this incident.)

And is it not odd at all that DeM seems to have forgotten all about this photo until accidentally finding it in storage?

(h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding arifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by topick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April,1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and wewent through this entire incident).

Yet this is what he described in his WarrenCommission testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER - Would youtell us about that conversation?

Mr. PAINE - I asked him what he was doing, hisjob, and

he showed me a picture on the wall, which was a piece of newspaper,

I think--that is beside the point. I asked him about Russia, what he liked about.

Mr. DULLES - Could we get that picture?

Mr. PAINE - I think it was beside the point.

It was a piece of newspaper showing a fashion ad, I think.

I think his job was--

Mr. DULLES - Nothing to do with politics at all,to do with his job. I see.

At the start of his testimony, we find:

The CHAIRMAN - You have seen it.

Very well, will you rise and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PAINE - I do.

So please explain again how you absolve him from his lies.

(i) Marinatestified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle(note, I said "a" rifle)

Have you ever bothered checking what their neighbors had to say about this?

I have.

Alexander Eames, III

Jesse Garner

Mrs Louis Rico

Eric Rogers

Catherine Schmidt

They all seem to have been very observant neighbors who took note of everyone's comings and goings, yet none saw Oswald do anything on his porch except read. As dangerous as books may be, Oswald wasn't shooting one of those from the 6^th floor either, unless in your "reality", he was some type of cross between Don Adams and Sean Connery complete with all manner of secret agent gadgets…

To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of"a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and GeorgeDeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidencewas published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later thatSpring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this isfrom his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "theassassin."

It's called playing both sides. She excels at it. Fortunately there are some who see through it and know the questions she really needs to answer under oath. You interviewing Marina has no more depth than - but all the purpose of - Sean Hannity interviewing George Bush.

In making these statements, I am not saying thatOswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrongwith the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separateissue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle.

And I'm simply saying you're talking through the wrong orifice.

I do not see how that can be denied. It is afundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing thiscase (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswaldpossessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach.

There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswaldpossessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear tohave been "the assassin."<br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

Mr. PAINE. No, I didn't know prior to the assassination,

We didn't know he had a rifle

.

I

had supposed from my conversation with him back on Neely Street that he would like to have a rifle

but I didn't gather that he did.

I have interviewed Ruth Peters, one of the daughters of Ruth Kloepfer who visited the Oswald's inSeptember '63. She, without prompting, also told me how Oswald had expressed interest in buying a "gun" when he left NO for "important business" somewhere in the east (she thought he mentioned Philadelphia or DC).

In short, his apparent desire to own a "gun" as described by Paine, was independently confirmed by Dr Peters, and what's more – that desire had not become part of his "reality"between Neely St, Oak Cliff and Magazine St, New Orleans (early March '63 through late September, '63.)

(edit due to confusion created by the name: The Dr Peters mentioned above is not Dr Paul Peters, but Dr Ruth Peters (nee Kloepfer)

In other words, this leads right back to thelegitimacy and integrity of the Bethesdaautopsy.

History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being"the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order(although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true).History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because PresidentKennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture ofthe shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is notjust false, but a fabrication based on an altered body.

That is the proper historical focus for any theoryof an "Oswald frame-up."

I have nothing to add to what Lee said on this.

DSL

3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 22, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Lee and Greg,

Great replies. You guys said much of what I intended to say.

David,

I realize that, unlike most of us on this forum, you know Marina personally. However, like many critics, I cannot place much credence in anything she says at this point. Her WC testimony was laughable. The first generation of critics, most notably Weisberg, analyzed all this in great detail. Like Jim D., I find it hard to believe you would accept Marina's accusation that LHO shot at Walker (if indeed you do).

There is no reason to accept the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, or any other "incriminating" evidence against LHO that emanated from Marina, the Paines or the DeMohrenschildts. This is part and parcel of what I've termed the "neo-con" or neo-conspiracy platform; a gradual dilution of the evidence that first attracted most of us to this case, and led to our disbelief in the official story. The mysterious deaths of witnesses and the umbrella man are a few other aspects of this case that fall into this category.

David, I respect you very much and value your presence on this forum. However, on this point I think you're being way too kind to the sources you cite. Oswald may have owned a rifle, but that has not been conclusively proven. All the evidence linking him to the alleged murder weapons is tainted and questionable. Why start at point C- acknowledging that he owned a rifle- if points A and B are flawed?

The DeMohrenschildts told the WC that Marina said "That crazy idiot is target shooting all the time," and that he would go to the park and shoot at leaves. Do you really believe that sort of testimony is credible?

[Greg Parker]

David, you sent the following PM. I'm not sure why since there is nothing of a personal nature in it; it is merely a continuance of our discussion here. I don't make a habit of posting PM's but this is really where it should be...

FYI: Lee lied to Ruth Paine and said he was going to Houston, etc.

He told the truth to his wife, and asked her not to tell Ruth Paine.

And you have Marina's word on that I take it?

So much for why both ladies testified similarly, in the beginning.

The pictures you are asking for were in fact destroyed. Marguerite testified, in detail, about how she personally saw to it that they were flushed down the toilet. (Did you not know that?)

"Picture" singular. Yes, I knew that. It is you who was having some difficulty with the exact details. I wanted to give you a chance to refresh your memory and back away from it.

Re Michael Paine: he did not disclose seeing the 8 x 10 photo until the interview for the Oswald program, broadcast on Frontline in 1993. (Of course he should have disclosed it earlier. He did not.)

Correct. Under oath, he did not. He lied then, or he has lied since. Your insistence that he lied under oath is worth exploring. He didn't merely fail to mention seeing the photo, as someone might who was embarrassed about having knowledge that could have averted a major crisis. According to you, he INVENTED a substitute for the photo by claiming what he had seen was a newspaper clipping of an ad Oswald had worked on. Such subterfuge goes beyond hiding an embarrassing piece of knowledge; it is the work of an accomplished xxxx.

I do believe that DeM found a valid print of the photo, in storage. Did he deliberately without that information at the time of the WC investigation? That's an interesting question, but it doesn't change the fact of the existence of this photo, which Lee dated 4/5/63 and gave to DeM.

It doesn't change the existence of it. Where it came from and who wrote on it is up for grabs. Late arriving evidence - especially evidence that anyone else would have remembered and given to the authorities (or at least advised them of it) at the earliest opportunity, needs a lot more support for authenticity than you offer.

Re your question re Marg O--its all in Marguerite Oswald's testimony. Go to the History Matters website, there are 3 times she testifies. Perhaps you can seach on the word "flush" or "toilet." Its there.

It is you who needs to read it and then contemplate the ramifications therein.

If you saw my full interview with Marina, you'd know that its one of the most eloquent, heartfelt statements of her belief in his innocence that she ever made.

Yes. I'm sure she was very convincing. And I'm sure you asked all the hard questions

^{So. . . I don't understand your hostility on this matter.}

^{Simple. I'm a curmudgeon.}

[David Von Pein]

I still want to know how David Lifton manages to get James Tague wounded by a FRONTAL gunshot?

David never did answer that question (which is a question I directly asked him on this forum

a week or two ago).

Let's take a gander at a photo from Commission Exhibit No. 875 (while keeping in mind where on Elm Street JFK's vehicle was located during the entire time when bullets were being fired at him on 11/22/63) and then ask that question again: How could James Tague have possibly been peppered in the face by a gunshot that came from anywhere in FRONT of Kennedy's limousine? ....

Edited March 22, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Don Jeffries]

Lee,

Just for clarification, I believe Marina claimed that LHO tossed his weapon in some convenient bushes after shooting at Walker. Presumably he went back later to retrieve it. Totally ridiculous story.

[Gil Jesus]

Even though he had a pistol in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

You're actually going to try and take that gun out of Oswald's hands in the theater too?

Can we see the method of payment and the shipping records of the revolver ?

[Gil Jesus]

Oswald never appeared in court. Experts that appear in court are subject to cross-examination.

The Warren Commission had the opportunity to hand-pick the experts that appeared. And only ask them what they wanted to ask.

And lead their testimony.

And you make an excellent point there. Witnesses were "interviewed" before their public appearances to give testimony. Many times in the testimony, when witnesses hesitated, they were reminded by counsel "we've talked about that before". It's obvious that the witnesses were coaxed and the ones who refused to be just had their testimony changed. Several witnesses who read their testimony after it was published complained that what was printed in the official record was NOT what they had testified to. Other witnesses, who were among the closest to the victims or who had the best view of the crime as it unfolded, were NEVER placed on the Commission's witness list, which was controlled by the FBI.

When the criminals control the evidence, ANYTHING is possible.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

Even though he had a pistol in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.

You're actually going to try and take that gun out of Oswald's hands in the theater too?

Can we see the method of payment and the shipping records of the revolver ?

Nevermind, I found the exhibits.

Michaelis Exhibits

Volume 20

[David Von Pein]

Let me ask you this, if I may? What was wrong with the Warren Commission in spending all that time, effort and money in going after a missed first shot, Dave? Doesn't CE875 demonstrate the absurdity of this as a theory?

Maybe you'd better brush up on the Warren Report some more.

The Warren Commission didn't definitively say that the first shot missed, and they never said they knew for certain which shot caused the Main St. curb damage and the slight injury to bystander James T. Tague. The Commission, instead, laid out several possibilities.

The best guess is that the first shot missed, yes (largely via Governor Connally's testimony), but the WC lays out all possible scenarios--including a missed SECOND shot and missed THIRD shot.

The Warren Commission and its staff has been unfairly criticized for decades as pigeon-holing themselves into believing certain things--and it's totally unwarranted criticism. The SBT is another such example, with most conspiracists believing that the WC was FORCED into accepting the SBT at all costs--which is just plain wrong. Read Page 117 of the Warren Report to see how wrong those conspiracy theorists are:

Edited March 22, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Lifton]

The money order was allegedly purchased on March 12th.

It then went to Chicago and was supposedly deposited there on the 13th.

Evidently Lifton did not point this out to the accountant.

In Armstrong's book, he points out this rather odd stamp. (p. 448)

My own observation is that its weird for a rubber stamp to bleed through so much like that.

As per the stamps that should be on the M.. O., WIlmouth testified to what should be there as it tracked through the system, and ended up in Kansas CIty--not Alexandria.

[snipped to save space]

DSL

3/20/11; 5 AM PDT

[snipped to save space]

And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons.

I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle):

(a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews).

( Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him).

(c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite).

(d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident).

(e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was)

(f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony)

(g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.)

(h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident).

(i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle)

To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin."

In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle.

I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach.

There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin."

In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy.

History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body.

That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up."

DSL

3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Your points (a) though (i) have a layer of what some would describe as "surface truth” attached to them and to people without a deep understanding of the case these points you make may well swing their thinking in the direction that you wish to swing it. However, if you want to give readers more to chew on, you may want to peel away some layers of the onion you are holding and include the following so they can make more of an informed decision regarding ownership of the firearms.

In Marina Oswald’s first day affidavit she mentions absolutely NOTHING about Lee owning a rifle in the United States. I will say that again, there is NOTHING in her first day affidavit that suggests that her husband owned any firearm whilst he was in the United States. What she does say in this affidavit is that Lee used to have a rifle in Russia that he used for hunting. She then goes on to say that she knew there was a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage. She doesn’t say it was Lee’s. She simply says that she knew there was one there and it was wrapped in a blanket. She doesn't even claim ownership of the blanket for that matter.

We are led to believe that the “above board” Ruth Paine, who knew when lights were getting left on in her garage, DID NOT KNOW that this rifle was there? Both of the Paine’s were adamant that they knew nothing of a rifle prior to the events of November 22nd, yet in your own points that you make (point h) you state that Michael Paine saw a picture of Oswald holding the rifle in April of 1963. Now what is interesting about this is that when Michael Paine went to unload the Oswald’s belongings into the garage of 2515 West Fifth Street after Marina came back from New Orleans he actually handled the weapon, he handled it that much that he said the following in his Warren Commission testimony:

[snipped]

Going back to Marina for a moment how on earth can we be sure as to what she said during the immediate aftermath of the assassination? As far as I’m aware is it alleged that she didn’t speak English. That being the case what we have in the immediate hours after the shooting is an interpretation of events as given by a certain Ruth Paine:

DSL reply:

This is a reply to certain specifics of your post (re Marina, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, etc.) and then goes on to discuss certain wider issues.

Re Marina Oswald's first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc etc etc--all of it can be ignored because she was simply seeking, in those earliest statements, to protect her husband. Despite their marital problems, she in fact loved him. Those reports constitute important evidence showing the extent to which Marina was willing to shade the truth in the interest of protecting her dead husband--but not much more.

It is for this same reason that she never said a thing about the Walker shooting, until the handwritten note by Oswald was found. (And if you're going to tell me, at this late date, that you think she made all that stuff up, then we part ways on a most fundamental issue.)

As to your statement that what Marina said is really what "Ruth Paine said Marina said" (i.e., that what Marina said is either "not what she said" or was the result of deliberately improper translation by Ruth Paine) etc etc.--that is also incorrect. Perhaps Ruth "translated" in an early interview, but it didn't go much beyond that. If you want to hear with your own ears Marina's very earliest statement(s)--you could order and listen to her (speaking in Russian) on the tapes that are the basis for CD 344, the very first interview of Marina by the Secret Service); or just read the transcript. I published this material in 1968, in a private edition of a book I called "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." (Or just order CD 344 from the Archives, or perhaps it is available on a website). The translator on those tapes was not Ruth Paine, but a Russian speaking Secret Service agent (Gopadze). The same is true of all of Marina's FBI interviews. The Russian speaking agent there was Boguslav. So if you are entertaining some "its Ruth Paine who said she said that" hypothesis as to why Marina did not say what she is reported to have said, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I knew Marina very well. We had dozens of conversations starting in the Spring of 1981, after the publication of BEST EVIDENCE. The notion that Lee didn't possess a rifle is simply ludicrous, and if the basis for your view of this case--a situation in which Lee Oswald was framed for a murder he did not commit--is that he did not (even) possess a rifle, then you are pursuing a hypothesis that is completely disconnected from the facts and (I might add) from reality. Perhaps a novel writer or a TV writer might play around with such a hypothesis--in which the wife really "knows the truth" but her reality is being altered because of a malevolent translator--but none of that fits the facts or the evidence in this case.

As to Michael Paine, that is a separate (but related) issue. I have always believed that his "camping equipment" testimony is very squirrely, and have often thought Michael surely must have known that Lee had a rifle stored in the garage. But so what? Even if that is so, what would it show? Just that Michael Paine is one more example of someone who distanced himself from Lee and his rifle. More important, there's no question, imho, and based on personal conversations with him in 1995, but that Michael Paine saw 8 x 10 photo of Lee with the rifle and the communist newspapers when he came by to bring him to dinner, in early April. I had serious conversations with him about this. He was credible. If you want to understand Michael Paine, you must start with his very first interview with the NY Times (published, as I recall, on 11/24/63) and must also familiarize yourself with the evidence that he very likely bought a car for Oswald. If you're not dealing with that data, then you're not dealing with the reality of Michael Paine.

WIDER ISSUES:

Turning to another issue (which is not the subject of this thread), I should like to address it anyway. I thoroughly disagree with your hypothesis that Oswald wasn't on McWatters bus, or in Whaley's cab. Frankly, I believe your entire analysis to be false, and a complete misreading of the record. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the global picture as to what was going on with Oswald after the shots were fired at Dealey Plaza. Anyone who subscribes to your hypothesis will then necessarily have the whole chronology of what happened after 12:30 PM CST entirely wrong, while smugly thinking they have found some important "truth." (Remember what Ray Carroll said after one of your posts--that you seemed to miss "the Prince of Denmark"--I thought that was an astute observation).

As to the tone of the rest of your remarks, and specifically, as to the basic thesis of body alteration (i.e., wound alteration, and bullet removal) prior to autopsy, my work speaks for itself. Most people who attack it display an abysmal ignorance of the known facts in the record if they do not realize that, with regard to the body's arrival at the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at Bethesda. . .:

(a) that the wounds were altered (both in the area of the neck and head)

(b ) that the body did not arrive (at Bethesda) in the same coffin as it left Dallas

(c ) that the body did not arrive wrapped the same way as it left Dallas; i.e., sheets vs body bag

(d ) that the body arrived at the morgue a good 20 minutes before the coffin at Bethesda

(As to proposition "d," my list of witnesses for that has now grown to about 15, any number of whom I have interviewed personally. If you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body's entry to the morgue, there were "3 entries of 2 caskets", then be my guest. (See B.E., Chapters 25-28; or, for a good summary; OR, read Jacob Hornberger's article "The Casket Conspiracy" on the net; or see Doug Horne's book).

And so on and so forth. The body is the most important evidence in any murder case; and in this one, any frame-up of Oswald had to start with the body.

The body could not be altered without it first being intercepted. The plethora of evidence indicating the body was covertly intercepted is clear evidence that something serious happened with the body--i.e., the wounds on the body.

If you find that distasteful, or for some reason can't deal with it, then I shall resort to the old saying that President Harry Truman used to use: "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

Anyone who does not understand that (and if the shoe fits, then do wear it) ends up going down an important false trail: i.e., thinking of the "frame-up of Oswald" as something that occurred "after the fact," rather than something that was integral to this crime, as something designed, and (in certain important respects) executed, before the fact.

Many of the issues pertaining to Oswald deal with matters that ante-date November 22, 1963--and that not only includes his ordering a rifle, but also moving from one city to another, his behavior in New Orleans, his going to Mexico City, the full truth about how he got the job in the building on October 16, 1963, his behavior in the weeks prior to the shooting, even his carrying a package to work on the morning of the assassination. Its all part of one "global" picture.

If one has the wrong "global understanding"--and in particular, if one does not understand the centrality of the autopsy to the architecture of this crime, and particularly, to the frame-up that occurred here--one cannot begin to grasp what happened. It would be like looking up in the sky at night, seeing only the moon, and falsely concluding that that is the extent of "the universe." An astronomer who preached that view would be told by his learned cohorts to get a better telescope.

Unfortunately, by not fully appreciating the centrality of the body as evidence, some JFK researchers--well intentioned, no doubt, but misguided, nevertheless--think in those terms.

Your posts offer a good example. You apply a 100X magnifying glass to the evidence of the bus and the taxicab (and then misinterpret and mis-analyze that data, imho) but do not have the interest (or perhaps insight) to apply the same scrutiny and analysis where it belongs: i.e., when it comes to the medical evidence, and specifically, to the body of President Kennedy.

Also, the entire tone of your post has the personal overtones of an envious writer. Lacking from your post is any appreciation, much less understanding, of the important confirmation of my work that occurred as the result of the ARRB. Doug Horne--the Chief Analyst of Military Affairs on the ARRB--worked with the medical evidence for three full years. He is one of the few people in the world who actually was present at the depositions of the three autopsy doctors, not to mention the person responsible for the deposition of other medical witnesses. These witnesses would not have been deposed were it not for Jeremy Gunn's serious interest in my work (and Horne's too).

Here is Doug Horne's statement on the matter which he posted years ago:

QUOTE David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.) UNQUOTE

To comprehend what happened on November 22, 1963, one must start with the understanding that this crime was planned well in advance. It did not turn on someone forging a money order after the fact (even if that document turns out to be a forgery--and I'm not at all sure that is so, but will be very interested should that turn out to be the case).

But all that is really beside the point.

The fundamental architecture of this murder--an architecture that implicated Oswald, by implicating the so-called "sniper's nest that was supposedly the source of the shots--was determined by the wounds on the body at the time of autopsy. In other words (and to coin a phrase), the body was the sun in the solar system of the evidence. If you do not understand that, then study a good book on homicide investigation. At issue here is not some arcane frivolous concept, but something central to the entire Kennedy case.

When I first showed the evidence that the body was altered to former WC counsel Wesley Liebeler in October, 1966 (see Chapter 9 of Best Evidence), he "got it" immediately. The result was a 13 page memorandum (which I helped research, and which Liebeler drafted) that went to the Chief Justice of the U.S., all the other commission attorneys, the staff, President Johnson, the Justice Department, and Robert Kennedy. Three of the Warren Commissioners then flew down to the ranch, to speak with Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, "The Liebeler Memorandum"). And I have certain unpublished information that Robert Kennedy took it seriously. Very seriously indeed.

But. . apparently you--now in the year 2011--still don't "get it," and so are lecturing us with your view on what is important, and what does (or perhaps should) constitute the "reality" of others on this forum.

Well, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps, if you seek enlightenment, and for starters, you should read the 1997 ARRB testimony of FBI Agent James Sibert, who talked about the huge size of the hole in Kennedy's head when the body arrived at Bethesda, and wrote, in his own hand, and in notes he brought to the ARRB deposition: "Brain had been removed from head cavity." Perhaps you should also peruse his sworn testimony about what he told me (about his own FBI report). And of course perhaps you should return to, and study carefully, what Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their original FBI report derived from notes both made in the Bethesda morgue on the night of November 22, 1963 (CD 7, 280 and pp following). Sibert and O'Neill reported that when the body arrived, the autopsy doctor said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Repeated Sibert, under oath, on 9/11/97, and in a deposition in which he names me more than once, "The report stands."

Frankly, the whole tone of your post is that of someone who focuses on minutiae, and fails to see (much less understands) the global picture.

DSL

3/21/11; 8:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Your reply simply reinforces the perception that you are lost in your own little world.

You start off by making, what can only be described as, a series of “school-boy” errors. Your claim that “Marina’s first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc, etc, etc…are to be ignored because she was simply protecting her husband” make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here’s why; when Gus Rose and friends arrived at 2515 West Fifth Street, Marina and Ruth both knew that the President had been shot. We are led to believe that Ruth “had been expecting” the police as soon as they “heard what had happened.” Marina DID NOT protect her husband because according to the translation that was provided by Paine she took the Detectives immediately to the garage and told them he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket. Is this, in your “reality” protecting her husband? Remember, we are also led to believe that Ruth Paine didn’t know the rifle was there so wouldn’t it have made more sense, if Marina did know there was a rifle in the garage, wrapped in a blanket, if she had simply gone into the garage and checked if the rifle was there and upon noticing that it wasn’t take the blanket and put it somewhere else in the house? The Detectives didn’t arrive at the Paine’s until after 4pm so she had about 3 hours to see whether the rifle was still in the garage. Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me. If Ruth and Marina both knew that the President had been shot from the TSBD, and Marina believed that Lee had a propensity to shoot at things and people, wouldn’t her first instinct take her to the garage?

If there was nothing “wrong” with Ruth Paine’s translation whilst visiting the garage and Gus Rose picking up the blanket, then why, after NOT protecting her husband, did she then go down the station and begin the process of “protecting” him? Isn't that akin to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted? She had already left him in it up to his neck, and you want me to believe that after an “accurate” translation from Ruth Paine at the West Fifth Street house she then gives as affidavit later that day that DOES NOT STATE that he owned “a” or “the” rifle? Please, reconcile this for me. What does your reality do with this information?

And for your information, Dave, I do know who did all of Marina’s translating throughout the period she was entertained by the FBI and the Secret Service. I also know who did her translating for her Warren Commission testimony. You are missing my point.

1) Ruth Paine did the translating when the DPD and Irving Deputies arrived

2) We DO NOT KNOW whether the translations were accurate

3) If the translations were accurate then Marina DID NOT protect her husband because she immediately took them to what she thought was the rifle

4) Her first affidavit at the station DOES NOT match what we are told occurred at the house

As a side note you may also wish to reflect upon the fact that Peter Paul Gregory was invited to translate for Marina during her testimony that she gave in Dallas. Gregory became a Warren Commission interpreter who was not only involved in the case but had actually given testimony to the Commission in March of 1964.

I am not, as your deceptive “reality” suggests, “Barking up the wrong tree.” I know which tree I’m barking up and I know why I am barking. It is you that is trying to put me "on a leash” because you mistakenly and deceptively believe I am some sort of pig.

I’m not interested in the rest of Marina’s testimony or her statements. They have no credibility whatsoever. I also see that you ignored whether you buy-in to her claims that Oswald wanted to go and shoot Richard Nixon and she locked him inside a bathroom that locked from the inside. Is there a reason you ignored this?

Adding to this you have the problems with the Imperial Reflex camera and how it managed to work its way into the record, the fact that she didn’t know how to operate it, the fact that she didn’t remember how many pictures she took or when she took them, and the fact that you are introducing items of evidence into the debate that don’t actually exist. It is you that has the heap of problems in overcoming if you want to try to paint a picture of Marina’s honesty and/or credibility.

You are now implicitly claiming that Oswald shot at General Walker because Marina said he did. And what is your evidence for this? The ”If I am captured note…” that Ruth Paine was responsible for getting into the hands of the Secret Service. This would also be the note that mentions nothing about General Walker. It would also be the note that didn’t have Oswald’s latent prints on it if I remember correctly. Would this be your evidence? Are you not interested in the ballistics of the Walker case or the witness testimony? Are you not interested in asking how Oswald managed to get to Turtle Creek with his rifle on a bus? Are you not interested in where or how he buried it? Or how he then got it back home on the bus? Are you not interested in Walker’s testimony?

You are simply protecting and defending the lies of Michael and Ruth Paine in what you write. You are simply protecting Marina Oswald’s lack of credibility and lies. We shouldn’t be surprised, David. You have a track record of defending the indefensible. When you admire and “feel sorry” for demonstrable liars it sends out a message that is loud and clear to anyone that wants to tune into it. Greg has pointed out to you Michael Paine’s testimony regarding the photo that he saw when he allegedly visited Oswald at Neely Street. He lied. He lied to you, or the Warren Commission or both. If he lied, he is a xxxx. Is this point lost on you? He committed perjury. He should be fined and/or imprisoned for that alone. But you say he is “credible.” Do you not see why some people would think this was insane? Instead of trying to enter the mindset of people that you are trying to convince and see what you are saying from an alternative point of view you instead continue to hammer home a message of “but you’re not seeing this from my point of view.” “You are not dealing with the data that has brought me to my incredibly strange conclusions.”

Forgive me, Dave but I’m not on here trying to sell a product. You are. And you’re not much of a salesman.

As far as the bus is concerned, and your weird and warped reality taking you into a parallel universe, I am neither “smug” in believing I have “found an important truth” nor am I interested in whether you agree with it. I’m not trying to sell it. The bus thread started out with three people (that soon became four) disagreeing with certain elements of the official record. Those differences varied from one piece of evidence to the next. Over the next three weeks the four people that were closely involved with the creation of that thread had their belief systems merge. We all began to believe the same thing. There were others that then came on board and also began to understand the evidence in this aspect of the case for the first time. Am I interested in everyone believing what I believe? No. The thread is simply a representation of what can happen when people come together to share ideas, give feedback, challenge each other in the right way and ultimately come to a conclusion that makes perfect sense given the evidence that has been presented. You wouldn’t understand that though, Dave. Your history and the opinions of the critics, many of whom I’m not even worthy of shining the shoes of, demonstrated that you don’t like to share. The perception that exists concerning you and your pathology is of somebody who is secretive, greedy, egotistical, and something of a leech regarding information.

But the simple fact of the matter is that I do not care whether you want Oswald on the bus or not. I can only assume that it forms an integral part of the “reality” you have created in the Oswald book that you have been promising for a good couple of decades. To show you how warped your reality truly is I would like to point out that when you say the following in your reply, “Most people who attack [body alteration] display a dismal ignorance of the known facts…if you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body’s entry into the morgue, there were “3 entries of 2 caskets”, then be my guest” you demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension concerning what I originally wrote. I did not once enter into my own beliefs concerning your “theory”, I very simply stated that if A+B+C+D+E+F+G are all proved, then let’s say your theory is point K, it is surplus to requirements. I don’t need it. You do. And the reason you need it is because it represents your life’s work. I can understand how frustrating it must be to have a newer generation of people coming to the case and not needing your theory to prove Oswald’s innocence. But in the words of Bruce Hornsby and the Range, “That’s just the way it is.”

So, now that we’ve got that little understanding out the way, I shall turn the tables and say, if you would like to bump the “Oswald and Bus 1213” thread and give us all the insight that we are all currently absent then I’d be real interested to see why you think the bus hypothesis is incorrect. At this moment in time you have provided absolutely nothing that tears any holes in anything that has been proposed. It is simply “false” because you say it is? Or is it false because you agree with Ray in that to believe he wasn’t on the bus would be to believe that certain individuals within a corrupt DPD lied about certain things? Resurrect the thread. Let’s see what you’ve got.

You accused me before the bus thread had even commenced that digging into things such as McWatters, Bledsoe and the ticket transfer gave the likes of David Von Pein ammunition to fire at “us.” Well, first off, I don’t consider myself to be “with you.” And secondly, DVP has had nothing to say about the bus thread. Not many Lone-Assassin theorists have had much to say about it. You know why? It snookers them. It paints them into a corner. They can’t admit he wasn’t on the bus because it means that Fritz and Co. lied their asses off and that they fabricated evidence. They would love to have him off the bus because they could get him to 1026 North Beckley quicker but they can’t do it. Because if they admit there is a case for him not being on the bus or the taxi then they have to get him back over to Oak Cliff and the bus and taxi nullification brings Roger Craig (and others) back into play and they can’t have that. They are quiet on this matter. What they are not quiet about is your theory/theories [or what should correctly be termed Fred Newcombe and Perry Adams theory]. They use this as a bat to beat what they describe as “conspiracy theorists” each and every day on a variety of different forums. DVP has gone after you on this matter several times over the last couple of weeks. So again, your reality is warped. The accusations that you levelled at me should have been levelled at yourself. Body alteration and the faked up Z-Film are not the way into breaking through to the consciousness of the general public in 2013. You will find that they will instead be used to poke fun at and belittle the critical community as a whole.

And let’s leave Doug Horne out of this, shall we? This is about you. You, whether you like it or not, are a polarizing figure within JFK research and have been since mid-1960. It got to a stage where nobody trusted you and that’s well documented. And from what you have written in just a couple of posts on this one thread, not much has changed. And I don't trust you. And for a salesman selling a product, Dave, trust is everything.

You are Warren Commission apologist. You have always been a Warren Commission apologist. You will always be a Warren Commission apologist.

P.S. On the bus thread, if you do get a chance to prove it wrong, start with Henry Wade's press conference from the 24th (after Oswald has been shot) and listen to his list of evidence. Listen out for the name Mary Bledsoe. Listen out for a mention of landlady. This would be two days after she allegedly came forward. Let me know what you find. If you are not dealing with that data then you are not dealing with the reality of Mary Bledsoe.

Mr. Fairlie:

You have written:

"Your reply simply reinforces the perception that you are lost in your own little world."

And:

"You start off by making, what can only be described as, a series of “school-boy” errors. Your claim that “Marina’s first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc, etc, etc…are to be ignored because she was simply protecting her husband” make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here’s why; when Gus Rose and friends arrived at 2515 West Fifth Street, Marina and Ruth both knew that the President had been shot. We are led to believe that Ruth “had been expecting” the police as soon as they “heard what had happened.” Marina DID NOT protect her husband because according to the translation that was provided by Paine she took the Detectives immediately to the garage and told them he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket. Is this, in your “reality” protecting her husband?"

DSL RESPONSE: Marina took them to the garage because she knew her husband had a rifle, and that was where she believed it was stored. What she did NOT know is that it was not there. What, pray tell, is so complicated about that?

YOU WRITE: "Remember, we are also led to believe that Ruth Paine didn’t know the rifle was there so wouldn’t it have made more sense, if Marina did know there was a rifle in the garage, wrapped in a blanket, if she had simply gone into the garage and checked if the rifle was there and upon noticing that it wasn’t take the blanket and put it somewhere else in the house?"

DSL RESPONSE: Marina did indeed go to the garage, checked the blanket, saw the rifle was there (or believed that to be so), and felt relief. She did NOT know that the blanket was empty until the detective lifted it up, and it folded, in his hands.

YOU WRITE: "The Detectives didn’t arrive at the Paine’s until after 4pm so she had about 3 hours to see whether the rifle was still in the garage. Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me."

DSL Response: Then why don’t you buy a time machine, go back to the moment, and tell Marina what she should have done? (Do you call this kind of comment valid historical research? Yet you repeatedly engage in this sort of “analysis”).

YOU WRITE: "If Ruth and Marina both knew that the President had been shot from the TSBD, and Marina believed that Lee had a propensity to shoot at things and people, wouldn’t her first instinct take her to the garage?"

DSL response; Again, go to the time machine. You are just speculating, in the subjunctive, about what you think “ought to have happened.”

YOU WRITE: "If there was nothing “wrong” with Ruth Paine’s translation whilst visiting the garage and Gus Rose picking up the blanket, then why, after NOT protecting her husband, did she then go down the station and begin the process of “protecting” him?"

DSL: You’ve got this all bollixed up. You’ve obviously got a model of Marina’s behavior that derives from your expectations, but does NOT fit the reality of this case. The reality is very simple:

(a) Marina knew that Lee had a rifle (and if you don’t understand that, then you are truly off in some little island of your own)

(b ) she knew it was stored in the garage, or believed that to be so.

(c ) She was haunted by the Walker incident (the previous April 10) and indeed worried that Lee might be involved in the events at Dealey Plaza

(d) Shortly after hearing about the assassination, she went out to the garage and checked the blanket. The rifle (she mistakenly believed) was there, and she felt relieved

(e) When the police arrived, and the question was asked, Does you husband have a rifle, she answered “yes” to the question (almost simultaneously with Ruth answering “no”) which, as you perhaps know, surprised Paine.

(f) Everyone went to the garage.

(g) The blanket was pointed out to the police

(h) The detective lifted up the blanket, and it drooped. It obviously did NOT contain any weapon

(i) At that moment, Marina was convinced that Lee was involved in something awful.

On the way to the police station, Marina—now worried (and concerned that her husband was again involved in an incident with the gun, and which involved a “political” figure)—turned to Ruth Paine and asked the following question (sotto voice, and in Russian, and referring to the Presidential motorcade): “Was Walker in the car with him?”

Let me repeat that, so that—even in your state of foaming over at the mouth, with hostility towards me—this fact will perhaps enter your cerebrum: en route to the Dallas Police station, Marina asked Ruth Paine, sotto voice, “Was Walker in the car with him?”

In other words, Marina—plagued by the trauma as to what happened the previous April 10, and having little understanding of “the American way” nor of the details of the motorcade—wondered whether General Walker was in the limousine with President Kennedy. That’s how traumatized she was by the events of the previous April

Your ministrations to the contrary, this is the sequence that unfolded, as established by the record.

WIDER ISSUES:

Now, as to what appears (at least implicitly) to be this “theory” of yours (or at least, what emerges from your confused and angry and hostile commentary):

Jim Garrison used to say that as the motorcade wended its way through Dallas, and towards Dealey Plaza, certain people were looking at their watches. I believe that is true.

If I am to take your writing seriously, I suppose we are to presume the existence of a “housewives plot” and that as the motorcade wended its way towards Kennedy’s death, “the plot” consisted (at least, in part) of Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald ready to pounce on Lee, and make him appear guilty.

Is that your idea of “the conspiracy”? (Do you understand how silly that appears to be? Or are you so lost in your own world, filled with enmity towards Marina, towards Ruth Paine, and towards me, that you can’t see the forest for the trees?)

I’m afraid to inform you but I believe its you who are off in your own little world, conjuring up a completely non-workable plot, based on a flawed analysis of who was lying to who, and for what reason. (And, as I have also emphasized before, ignoring the centrality of the false autopsy, which is really where the emphasis ought to be. But, apparently, that doesn't suit your fancy--so you're off speculating about, and constructing, a "housewives plot." I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you, but that will lead nowhere.)

If you would focus on Ruth Paine’s testimony about what Marina asked her, sotto voice, and in Russian, as they proceeded from the Irving home, to the Dallas Police station, you will begin to understand the psychological reality of what is going on here. To repeat: Ruth Paine testified that Marina asked: “Was Walker in the car with him?”

Perhaps you can ponder the implications of that. (Or are you going to crawl back into your time machine, and treat us to a lecture on that?)

Unless you are going to respond with your wholesale nonsense that nothing that Ruth Paine says can be believed, and nothing that Marina says can be believed and nothing that I say should be believed (which then permits you to behave like a child in a kindergarten art class, and paint any old picture you wish), this testimony has certain important implications:

(1) Whether or not LHO actually shot at Walker, events were apparently managed on the night of April 10, 1963, to create the appearance that he did; and Marina was clearly traumatized by those events when November 22, 1963 rolled around. So whether you like it or not, Marina believed her husband shot at Walker. That’s just a fact of her reality. So: whether you believe it or not (and you were not there), let me assure you that she believed it. (Now if you don’t like that, then go write a TV script that says otherwise—but clearly, historical analysis is NOT your cup of tea.)

(2) Consequently, when the assassination occurred, at the location where Lee worked, Marina “checked the blanket” to make sure it still had the gun. She mistakenly thought that it did. (Again, go check the record. That’s what she says she did, and why.)

(3) When the police arrived, she brought them to the garage, thinking the rifle was there.

(4) When the detective picked up the blanket and it drooped, she was crestfallen, and all her worst fears returned.

(5) En route to the police station, she quietly asked Ruth, in Russian, “Was Walker in the car with him?”

Instead of spending your time and effort in largely illogical and irrational attacks on me, perhaps you should ponder the facts of the situation, because it is only by understanding those facts, that you will perhaps gain some insight as to where the truth lies.

P.S. And oh yes, don't forget about the false autopsy, based on Kennedy's altered wounds, all of which is really the key to this case, and should be the focus of any valid historical analysis, and not your fanciful "housewives conspiracy." But I don't want to overtax anyone's mental processes.

DSL; 3/22/11; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited March 22, 2011 by David Lifton