Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Liebeler Memorandum


Recommended Posts

David, your many references to the 1966 Liebeler Memo on the medical evidence spurred me to dig up my copy of Best Evidence and re-read the memo. To my surprise, it isn't in the book. You do mention, however, that you have a copy of the memo, and that it is now a public document.

I've looked online, but haven't been able to find it.

So, my question is two-fold. If you have a digital copy of the memo, would you please post it here so others can read it? If not, can you at least provide me with a direct quote from the memo, so I can try to find it on the Mary Ferrell site?

Thanks,

Pat

P.S. If you'd rather just mail me a copy via snail mail, that would be fantastic as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I have a copy of the Liebeler memo that I found in Gerald Ford's files at the Ford Library in Ann Arbor Michigan (remember, the memo was sent out in 1966 to the past WC members, among others).

To save David the trouble I'll see if I can find my copy, but I have to warn you, my files are bit of a mess from my last move and I can't promise anything.

Todd

David, your many references to the 1966 Liebeler Memo on the medical evidence spurred me to dig up my copy of Best Evidence and re-read the memo. To my surprise, it isn't in the book. You do mention, however, that you have a copy of the memo, and that it is now a public document.

I've looked online, but haven't been able to find it.

So, my question is two-fold. If you have a digital copy of the memo, would you please post it here so others can read it? If not, can you at least provide me with a direct quote from the memo, so I can try to find it on the Mary Ferrell site?

Thanks,

Pat

P.S. If you'd rather just mail me a copy via snail mail, that would be fantastic as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its not there where would it be?

Well, Jim, maybe it’s with the Harold Weisberg manuscripts that a few weeks back you flat outright claimed I didn't know anything about (when in fact I most certainly did).

You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts?

I mean, how would you have known one way or another?

Did you just make it up?

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its not there where would it be?

Well, Jim, maybe it’s with the Harold Weisberg manuscripts that a few weeks back you flat outright claimed I didn't know anything about (when in fact I most certainly did).

You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts?

I mean, how would you have known one way or another?

Did you just make it up?

Thanks, Todd, for your offer of assistance. You're right. As the memo was a correspondence among WC members, it would have a higher probability of being in the Weisberg Archives than in the Mary Ferrell Archives, which focuses mostly on official WC documents. The problem is, as you no doubt discovered, that the Weisberg Archives are pretty difficult to navigate. I did find a number of gems there, however, when I spent a few weeks going through them online.

I also found, to my dismay, that the acrimony and distrust among the CT crowd is nothing new, not even remotely. The Armstrong papers now available confirm this. The CT crowd has, almost from the beginning, been almost as interested in accusing each other of misdeeds as it has in uncovering the truth about the assassination.

If one were to break it down, it wouldn't surprise me if as much as 20% of Weisberg's letters were complaints about other researchers. At least it felt that way. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You're right. As the memo was a correspondence among WC members, it would have a higher probability of being in the Weisberg Archives than in the Mary Ferrell Archives, which focuses mostly on official WC documents."

I was being facetious for Jimmy D's benefit. Buy I agree with everything else you said.

Jimmy, you gonna answer my question?

If its not there where would it be?

Well, Jim, maybe it’s with the Harold Weisberg manuscripts that a few weeks back you flat outright claimed I didn't know anything about (when in fact I most certainly did).

You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts?

I mean, how would you have known one way or another?

Did you just make it up?

Thanks, Todd, for your offer of assistance. You're right. As the memo was a correspondence among WC members, it would have a higher probability of being in the Weisberg Archives than in the Mary Ferrell Archives, which focuses mostly on official WC documents. The problem is, as you no doubt discovered, that the Weisberg Archives are pretty difficult to navigate. I did find a number of gems there, however, when I spent a few weeks going through them online.

I also found, to my dismay, that the acrimony and distrust among the CT crowd is nothing new, not even remotely. The Armstrong papers now available confirm this. The CT crowd has, almost from the beginning, been almost as interested in accusing each other of misdeeds as it has in uncovering the truth about the assassination.

If one were to break it down, it wouldn't surprise me if as much as 20% of Weisberg's letters were complaints about other researchers. At least it felt that way. Oh well.

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts?

I mean, how would you have known one way or another?

Did you just make it up?

Todd, you don't understand.

Mr. Di Eugenio KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYONE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accidental Duplicate

It's a lack of patience.

According to the ARRB, "At the time of his testimony, Liebeler provided to the Review Board copies of six chapters from his unfinished book on the assassination. In addition, Liebeler provided the Review Board with a report on the Zapruder film written by UCLA Physics professor Brian Jones. Liebeler had apparently requested that Jones examine the Zapruder film and prepare the report."

Liebeler told the ARRB:

But in any event I sat down and started going through the House materials, and decided for about the third time that I was going to write a book about this. And I did a lot of stuff and of course lost interest in it and had basically forgotten about it until I was talking to Tom Samoluk earlier this summer. And I told him about this material that I had that was so far just on computer disks that were here in my office at UCLA and he said that he thought the Committee ought to have it so I came out a few days early and dug it out and ran it off and did a little bit of work on it. And have -- this is the typescript that I have and it has to be copied from that, which I'm going to copyright stamp. I'm not giving it to you but it's for your use as you see fit.

The first six chapters of that I talk about the shots that hit the President, Governor Connally's wound, the force of the shots, who fired the shots, the single bullet theory and the question of trajectory, alignment and the single bullet theory, on which issues the House Committee and the Warren Commission were almost 100 percent in agreement. There are discrepancies as to the autopsy and the next chapter is entitled "evaluation of the autopsy," which wasn't as we all know the best in the world. And also I make reference to the fact of what I regard as the failure or the remissness, if you will, of the Warren Commission in not using the autopsy photographs and x-rays to make sure that the drawings that these doctors made were right. And it turned out they weren't. But that's unfortunate and water over the dam. I also have a chapter on the President's backward movement at the time of the head shot. And then two chapters on acoustical evidence and evaluation of the acoustical evidence. And that's what I want to focus on primarily in terms of what I think -- if you haven't done this, would be a good thing for you to do.

Liebeler had this to say about Lifton:

I think that this acoustical evidence and the conclusions of the House Committee, as to the possible fourth shot from the grassy knoll and the possible conspiracy has been thoroughly discredited. But it doesn't seem to make much difference what the facts are, and I think in that sense you do have a hopeless task. Because no matter what the facts are, people like the fellow who spoke here before, and Mr. Lifton, and people like that will still not be satisfied as to what the actual facts appear to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, your many references to the 1966 Liebeler Memo on the medical evidence spurred me to dig up my copy of Best Evidence and re-read the memo. To my surprise, it isn't in the book. You do mention, however, that you have a copy of the memo, and that it is now a public document.

I've looked online, but haven't been able to find it.

So, my question is two-fold. If you have a digital copy of the memo, would you please post it here so others can read it? If not, can you at least provide me with a direct quote from the memo, so I can try to find it on the Mary Ferrell site?

Thanks,

Pat

P.S. If you'd rather just mail me a copy via snail mail, that would be fantastic as well.

Thanks for your interest in the Liebeler Memo of November 8, 1966. A basic search at the NARA website shows that the Liebeler memo has the following Record Number:

182-10001-10014

Below my typed signature is a copy of the text of the NARA "RIF" sheet.

Over the years, I have checked--to see what the various recipients wrote on their copy, etc. I know that, besides being at the Justice Department (and I think I received an official copy from them decades ago) there are copies at the Ford Library, in the Richard Russell papers, and the Dulles papers at Princeton.

Let me assure you--it was all over the place, and (at the time) it caused quite a flap.

The Liebeler Memo of 11/8/66 pointed directly at FBI-generated evidence of inauthenticity (i.e., re pre-autopsy alteration of the wounds), and it called for a limited reopening of the investigation, in the medical area.

Since I was involved in the sessions that led to his drafting it, I know how seriously Liebeler took the matter. As I have mentioned, he was also in touch (by phone) with Ed Guthman, RFK's former top aide (and then, as I recall, the National Affairs Editor of the LA Times).

I was in touch with Liebeler quite often, and described the entire episode in Chapter 10 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled, "The Liebeler Memorandum." (And of course, this aspect of the story begins with Chapter 9 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled, "October 24, 1966: A Confrontation with Liebeler."

These chapters--and the related documents--should put to rest, once and for all, the nonsense promulgated by those who claim that I didn't make the discoveries about wound alteration when I did, that I was not the originator of the body alteration theory; or that I made it all up ten years later, to get a book contract. This is the sort of garbage that has been promulgated by Roger Feinman, the disbarred attorney on whom Jim DiEugenio leans so heavily for his medical "advice." Incidentally, Susan Liebeler, the wife of the late Wesley Liebeler, recently remarked to someone I know that "we always knew that David had found something very important." Of course, if you read Chapter 9 of Best Evidence--based in part on notes that Liebeler himself wrote on 10/24/66 (notes made as we spoke, and when I first unveiled all this to him, and to Susan)--that should be very obvious. I don't know that the phrase "mind blowing" was in use in 1966, but there's no question but that for Liebeler, for Susan, and for me--that entire day was a mind-blowing experience.

On another point: Someone asked me why the Liebeler Memo wasn't published in Best Evidence (and a related question was why the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report wasn't published). Remember: that FBI report stated that when the body arrived, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull". Well then, why wasn't that, also, published in B.E. The answer is that I felt that quoting the appropriate passages was quite adequate. As every author finds out, publisher's are very cost conscious, and the book already typeset out to 699 pages, and I didn't want to push the envelope and start advocating a size increase, to include one document or another. (After all: What about Transcript 1327 C? That was also a historically important document, and B.E. was the first book to publish the critical excerpts of Perry stating that the throat wound was an entrance wound).

Anyway, all the quotes from these documents--1327C, the S and O Report, and the Liebeler memo-- are accurate. And the circumstances leading to the writing, and distribution of the Liebeler memo are described in considerable detail.

I do not know whether the Liebeler memo is available at the Mary Ferrell site. Rex Bradford often reminds me that, although they have a lot, they don't have "everything."

Yes, I can look for my copy, make a scan, sent it along, etc. (Or maybe someone else will find their copy first). And the letter Liebeler wrote transmitting the memo (dated 11/16/66), plus the various replies he got back (including the 12/1/66 letter from Rankin, making clear that the matter would NOT be investigated, etc.) are also interesting. Very likely, that's why the document length is described as 24 pages. In any event, I have all that material too.

DSL

5/27/11; 6:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

DSL

FROM THE NARA DATA BASE:

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY: DOJ CIVIL

RECORD NUMBER: 182 - 10001 - 10014

RECORDS SERIES: Director, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR: Citizen

FROM: Wesley J. Liebeler

Title: Re: Autopsy Photographs and X-Rays of President Kennedy

Date: 11/08/2966

Pages: 24

Document Type: Paper, Textual Document

Subjects: Autopsy, Photographs and X-Rays

Classification: Open in full

Current Status: Open

Date of Last Review: 08/02/1993

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liebeler had this to say about Lifton:

I think that this acoustical evidence and the conclusions of the House Committee,

as to the possible fourth shot from the grassy knoll and the possible conspiracy has been thoroughly discredited.

Liebeler neglected to mention that when the acoustics were discredited,

So too were the ALLEGED 3 shots from the TSBD.

Exactly as Lifton's theory had foretold!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and by who has the acoustics been discredited for you,

By the National Academy of Science, that's who!

and secondly if it were how then does that mean the WC story was also discredited?

The Warren Commission claimed 3 shots from the TSBD,

and Blakey tried to PROVE that with accoustics.

Since the accoustics are JUNK SCIENCE

please tell us what other evidence YOU GOT

that there were 3 shots (or ANY shots)

from the TSBD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the best analysis ever done of the acoustics and a fine corrective to RC.

So this is an argument from authority,

In that case

I'll take the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

over Dr. Mantik

ANY DAY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy D.,

You wrote...

QUOTE ON:

Let me continue with a history lesson.

Three shots from the rear comes from the DPD, and it was adapted by the WC based on the evidence allegedly found by them:

1.) Three cartridge cases near the sixth floor window.

2.) A rifle allegedly purchased by Oswald on the sixth floor.

3.) A so-called sniper's nest set up.

4.) Fragments found in the car allegedly matched to the rifle.

5.) A bullet found at Parkland allegedly matched to the rifle.

Now, this is elementary stuff to anyone who knows anything about this case.

QUOTE OFF:

Here’s a little history lesson for YOU.

The DPD had absolutely NOTHING to do with 4.) Fragments found in the car allegedly matched to the rifle and, 5.) A bullet found at Parkland allegedly matched to the rifle. They didn’t find the items, as you claim, and they did they match the items as you claim. It was the SS who found or in the case of 399 took possession of the evidence and it was the FBI who did the matching.

“elementary stuff to anyone who knows anything about this case.”

I agree.

Why exactly is it that you continue to spread phony crap like this?

Todd

P.S. Are you ever going to answer my other question. I’ve asked you what, five times now and STILL no reply. What gives?

Let me continue with a history lesson.

Three shots from the rear comes from the DPD, and it was adapted by the WC based on the evidence allegedly found by them:

1.) Three cartridge cases near the sixth floor window.

2.) A rifle allegedly purchased by Oswald on the sixth floor.

3.) A so-called sniper's nest set up.

4.) Fragments found in the car allegedly matched to the rifle

5.) A bullet found at Parkland allegedly matched to the rifle.

Now, this is elementary stuff to anyone who knows anything about this case. And it predates the HSCA and Blakey and the acoustics. But this is where the three shots from the rear scenario comes from.

And if you are going to discredit the WC you discredit this evidence.

Which is not difficult to do. But Blakey never really touched this evidence. In fact, he purposefully cut off any real analysis of this core evidence. Why? Because he was determined all along to stick with Oswald as the assassin. Therefore you will see no real examination of the rifle purchase by the HSCA. Therefore there is no real questioning of Oswald's order of and picking up of the rifle.

You will see no real tracing of the provenance of CE 399 from the beginning to the end of its one day journey in the HSCA.

You will see no real questioning of how the heck the nose and tail of a bullet can end up in the front seat of the car while the middle part of that bullet stays in the skull. Yet in adapting FIsher, this is what Baden says happened.

Finally, as TInk Thompson and Michael Kurtz have proven, CE 543--the dented cartridge case-- was not fired that day.

Blakey did not do the above. SInce it essentially undermines the fundamentals of this case as started by the DPD and WC. He did not want to do that. Because this approach would have clearly suggested that something was wrong with this so-called core evidence. (Which, of course, there is.)

The only thing the HSCA questioned in the above list was the arrangement of the "sniper's nest". Which, on its own, is not really enough to knock out the three shot "Oswald did it" scenario.

So Ray, please ask Blakey how he was going with three shots from behind BEFORE the acoustics came in. He will tell you its from the above and had not one iota to do with the dictabelt.

Again, where do you get this goofiness?

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...