Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.

--------------------------

EDIT----

Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.

I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Humes made a number of false statements in his ARRB testimony. One of them was that he was unaware of Kennedy's throat wound during the autopsy.

In his HSCA testimony, autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said that, not only were the doctors aware of the throat wound, but were adamant that the bullet that entered the external occipital protuberance (EOP) wound had exited through the throat wound.

This testimony is corroborated by a JAMA article (Vol. 187, January 4, 1964, p. 15) which reported the following:

"The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat . . ."

This statement and variations of it were widely reported in newspaper on or around December 18, 1963. Lipsey called the projectile a bullet, but from these reports we can see that the autopsy docs likely said it was a bullet fragment.

Lipsey's testimony is also supported by a statement made by Chief Counsel Lee Rankin in the January 27, 1964 WC executive session:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . "

(Note that this Rankin comment was made long before the single bullet theory had been concocted. If you read the complete statement you will see that the autopsy results were still under development, and that Rankin's was assuming that the origin of the exiting throat fragment was the back wound. The one below the scapula, BTW.)

The bit in the papers about the throat wound coming from a fragment came about as a result of a leak from the FBI. The FBI had, amazingly, failed to read the autopsy protocol written by the doctors and had sought to explain the throat wound not mentioned during the autopsy by claiming it came as a result of a bullet fragment. This is reflected in the FBI's subsequent report.

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think it's just a coincidence that what was reported in the papers just happened to match what Lipsey said he saw/heard at the autopsy?

Rankin's comment is, for that matter, almost certainly a reference to the FBI's report, and not a reference to the autopsy protocol written by the doctors.

Rankin said "We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck..."

I believe that the autopsy results were in a state of flux and that the "fragment exiting the throat wound" idea was believed early on. I base my belief on what Rankin said in the part of WC Executive Session from which I pulled that quote. For example, when Rankin says

"Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time."

The FBI put out the word it was a fragment from the head wound that exited the throat. Lipsey thought it was the bullet itself. And besides, Lipsey never discussed his recollections until 15 years later.

As far as the last comment by Rankin, it's an obvious reference to the face sheet, which shows the throat wound above the level of the back wound. The WC then "developed" this info by convincing the doctors to create the Rydberg drawings, which reversed the relationship and showed the back wound at the base of the neck and inches above the throat wound.

This is probably best explained here:

Lipsey didn't say anything about the autopsy for 15 years because he was under strict military orders not too. He had signed a document stating that he would never reveal what he saw.

Anyway, I disagree with your assessment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My point about Lipsey was not that I doubt the accuracy of his recollections. His recollections mirror my own assessment of the medical evidence. My point was that there is no reason to believe he spoke to the press, or than anyone present at the autopsy spoke to the press, as background for the multiple press articles pouring out in December 63, in which the throat wound was explained by a fragment from the bullet creating the large head wound (and NOT a separate bullet, as per Lipsey).

As discussed ad nauseum in Chapter 1b of my website, these articles came about as a result of a leak, almost certainly from the FBI. When the Warren Commission refused to simply sign off on their report, the FBI (presumably with a nudge from Johnson) decided to take matters into their own hands and leak the substance of their report. This leak was then discussed in the WC's executive sessions. In any event, there is no reason--zero--to believe any of these articles came about as a result of the mainstream media's dogged pursuit of the truth, and its development of sources with the inside scoop on the medical evidence. This simply did not happen.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about Lipsey was not that I doubt the accuracy of his recollections. His recollections mirror my own assessment of the medical evidence. My point was that there is no reason to believe he spoke to the press, or than anyone present at the autopsy spoke to the press, as background for the multiple press articles pouring out in December 63, in which the throat wound was explained by a fragment from the bullet creating the large head wound (and NOT a separate bullet, as per Lipsey).

Humes reported a head wound located near the external occipital protuberance. The newspapers reported that a fragment of this bullet came out through the front of the neck. Lipsey said precisely this same thing to the HSCA. (Yes, Lipsey also talked of another bullet that caused the blowout. But that is not what we are discussing here.)

I don't know how the newspapers got this information. Maybe it was from the FBI as you say. My point is that it corroborates what Lipsey said about the EOP-to-neck path of the bullet fragment. And that what Lipsey said indicates Humes knew about the throat wound at the time of the autopsy.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I thought it was common knowledge among CTers that there were actually two bullets to the head... the one that entered near the EOP, and one whose entrance and exit were part of the occipital/parietal blowout. I need to check into this. Maybe Lipsey is the only person who reported it.

As discussed ad nauseum in Chapter 2 of my website, these articles came about as a result of a leak, almost certainly from the FBI. When the Warren Commission refused to simply sign off on their report, the FBI (presumably with a nudge from Johnson) decided to take matters into their own hands and leak the substance of their report. This leak was then discussed in the WC's executive sessions. In any event, there is no reason--zero--to believe any of these articles came about as a result of the mainstream media's dogged pursuit of the truth, and its development of sources with the inside scoop on the medical evidence. This simply did not happen.

Right. I didn't say that happened. It was clearly leaked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about Lipsey was not that I doubt the accuracy of his recollections. His recollections mirror my own assessment of the medical evidence. My point was that there is no reason to believe he spoke to the press, or than anyone present at the autopsy spoke to the press, as background for the multiple press articles pouring out in December 63, in which the throat wound was explained by a fragment from the bullet creating the large head wound (and NOT a separate bullet, as per Lipsey).

Humes reported a head wound located near the external occipital protuberance. The newspapers reported that a fragment of this bullet came out through the front of the neck. Lipsey said precisely this same thing to the HSCA. (Yes, Lipsey also talked of another bullet that caused the blowout. But that is not what we are discussing here.)

I don't know how the newspapers got this information. Maybe it was from the FBI as you say. My point is that it corroborates what Lipsey said about the EOP-to-neck path of the bullet fragment. And that what Lipsey said indicates Humes knew about the throat wound at the time of the autopsy.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I thought it was common knowledge among CTers that there were actually two bullets to the head... the one that entered near the EOP, and one whose entrance and exit were part of the occipital/parietal blowout. I need to check into this. Maybe Lipsey is the only person who reported it.

As discussed ad nauseum in Chapter 2 of my website, these articles came about as a result of a leak, almost certainly from the FBI. When the Warren Commission refused to simply sign off on their report, the FBI (presumably with a nudge from Johnson) decided to take matters into their own hands and leak the substance of their report. This leak was then discussed in the WC's executive sessions. In any event, there is no reason--zero--to believe any of these articles came about as a result of the mainstream media's dogged pursuit of the truth, and its development of sources with the inside scoop on the medical evidence. This simply did not happen.

Right. I didn't say that happened. It was clearly leaked.

When I first started writing about the medical evidence in 2004, Sandy, I was the only researcher claiming the large head wound was a separate wound from the wound by the EOP.

Most LNs believed the bullet entered near the cowlick, and that the EOP entrance didn't exist.

Many if not most CTs believed there was a large blow-out wound on the back of the head from a shot impacting on the front of the head, and that the EOP entrance was a hoax.

No one but no one was writing about Clark's impression the large head wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit.

No one but no one was writing about Lipsey, and his claim the autopsy doctors initially agreed with Clark's assessment.

No one but no one was writing about Lipsey and Robinson's recollection the EOP entrance was probed, and found to correlate with the throat wound.

These were all aspects of the medical evidence first developed on my website and reported on this forum.

In 2013, I realized that many of the top researchers were now claiming the large head wound was a tangential wound. I'd like to think that was a tipping point.

And you now seem anxious to discuss the possibility a bullet descended in the neck and exited from the throat wound. Maybe this will prove another tipping point.

Here's what I have on Lipsey. From chapter 17:

Finally, there’s Richard Lipsey, who was a military aide to the general responsible for Kennedy’s funeral, General Wehle. Lipsey was ordered to keep an eye on the President’s body during the autopsy. Consequently he sat close by and tried to listen to what the doctors were saying. On 1-12-78, he prepared a face sheet for the HSCA staff depicting the President’s wounds as he remembered them being discussed. And they’re exactly as I've proposed! In dismissing Lipsey’s account, the HSCA medical report said “Lipsey apparently formulated his conclusions based on observations and not on the conclusions of the doctors. In this regard, he believed the massive defect in the head represented an entrance and an exit when it was only an exit. He also concluded the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only represented a tracheostomy incision...Thus, although Lipsey’s recollection of the number of defects to the body and the corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are not supported by any other evidence.”

How strange that the writers of this report represent these as Lipsey’s conclusions, when his testimony is clear that this is simply what he believes he overheard! The panel never even asked the autopsy doctors if a shot connecting the wounds in the hairline and neck had been considered. The possibility of such a trajectory is never even discussed in their report. If the HSCA forensic pathology panel believed Lipsey to be wrong then they should have just said he probably misunderstood the doctors. Instead, the panel, which concluded that the Bethesda doctors' recollections were off by 4 inches on the head wound and at least 2 inches on the back wound, concluded that Lipsey was obviously wrong because his testimony was in disagreement with the statements of these very same doctors!

Had the panel confused the Hippocratic Oath with a lifelong pledge to be hypocrites?

And then later:

As the country neared the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, Richard Lipsey re-appeared in a series of interviews and articles in which he pushed that Oswald acted alone. (While there are probably more, I have come across a November 2013 article on Lipsey in Country Roads Magazine, an 11-17-13 article on Lipsey in the Baton Rouge Advocate, an 11-20-13 article on Lipsey in The New Orleans Times-Picayune, an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on radio station WKRF, and an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on C-SPAN2.) Now, it's not so strange that Lipsey would reappear as the country neared the 50th anniversary. He was an important witness, after all. No, what's strange is the content of his interviews. He said he'd been impressed with Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, and that he also supported Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, even though he had never actually got around to reading it.

Well, this might lead one to believe Lipsey had changed his mind, and that he no longer stood by what he'd told the HSCA back in 1978. Beyond claiming that "the direction" of the bullets as determined at autopsy supported that the shots came from behind, after all, he avoided detailed discussion of the President's wounds. One might conclude, then, that he no longer stood by his earlier account of the autopsy, an account that was totally at odds with the autopsy as presented by Posner and Bugliosi.

But one would almost certainly be wrong. In one of the interviews, Lipsey let it slip that he'd studied the FBI's report on the autopsy, and that he largely agreed with it. This report claimed that no passage connecting the back wound with the throat wound had been discovered during the autopsy. This was precisely what Lipsey had told the HSCA. Well, if Lipsey had subsequently come to believe there had been such a passage, well, then, why didn't he say so?

When one sifts through another article on Lipsey, this one published in The Advocate back on 9-6-92, for that matter, one finds even more reason to believe Lipsey never backed off from his 1978 recollections. The article claimed: "Lipsey said he also spoke years later with two other men in the room, Lt. Sam Bird, who was in charge of the honor guard that carried the casket from Air Force One to the ambulance and from the ambulance into the hospital, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill. Lipsey said that a few months ago O'Neill let him read the report he submitted after the autopsy. "I agreed with, like, 90 percent of what he said, and I'm sure the 10 percent I didn't agree with wasn't because he was correct or I was correct," Lipsey said. "It was because... after 30 years your memory gets a little foggy. His report that was written one hour after the autopsy really corroborates my way of thinking."

O'Neill's report, of course, claimed the bullet creating the back wound did not enter the body. While it's possible Lipsey thought this an understandable mistake that was cleared up the next day, it's hard to see how he could think such a thing, and 1) claim his disagreements with O'Neill (who never believed the bullet entered the body) were due to the passage of time, and 2) still claim O'Neill's report "corroborates my way of thinking."

And there's yet another reason to suspect Lipsey never wavered from his statements to the HSCA. In none of these post-HSCA interviews did Lipsey bring up his earlier claim a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited from the throat. But more to the point, in none of these interviews did the interviewer point out that the "official" story pushed by the men to whom Lipsey was now deferring--Posner and Bugliosi--holds that no bullet of any kind entered low on the back of the head, and that, as a consequence, no discussion of a bullet entering low on the back of the head could have been overheard by Lipsey during the autopsy. And that Lipsey's statements to the HSCA were thereby balderdash...

In fact, these interviews failed to mention Lipsey's ever saying anything at odds with the Posner/Bugliosi version of the Oswald-did-it scenario.

But he was not always so careful. A 10-31-09 article on Lipsey found on 225BatonRouge.com, for example, claimed that upon re-reading his statements to the HSCA, Lipsey, "notes that some of his responses were not as clean and concise as they could have been." He didn't admit he was wrong, mind you. The article then discussed the autopsy in some detail, and claimed the "doctors concluded there were three entry wounds: one in the lower neck, one in the upper neck/lower skull region and one at the rear crown of the head." Well, this was just bizarre; one might guess that the writer of this article, LSU Professor, James E Shelledy, was trying to hide that the bullet hole now claimed to be the fatal bullet hole, the one on the crown of the head, was not observed or discussed at the autopsy. To wit, Shelledy then offered "Several years later, second opinions by doctors determined Kennedy was hit by only two bullets." So, yeah, Shelledy made a strange mistake, and this mistake allowed him to conceal that the wound now claimed to be the fatal entrance wound was not observed by any witness to the autopsy, including Lipsey, and that Lipsey also failed to recall any discussion of such a wound.

A look back at Lipsey's words to the HSCA, however, put this strange passage in context, and make it clear Lipsey was responsible for the description of three bullet entrances, and not Shelledy. Lipsey told the HSCA's investigators: "as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more or less at the bottom of the neck." And to this, he later added: "I feel that there was really no entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out."

So, there it is. The entrance by the crown, to Lipsey's recollection, was the rear entrance to the large head wound he claimed had been described as a wound of both entrance and exit. It was not the small red spot in the cowlick later "discovered" by the Clark Panel. Lipsey had, after all, no recollection of an entrance wound in the cowlick.

And this goes to show that Lipsey, as late as 2009, still believed the doctors had on the night of the autopsy concluded the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And that they only subsequently decided that this wound was connected to the wound at the upper neck/lower skull.

We have good reason to doubt, then, that Lipsey ever changed his mind about what he told the HSCA. He supported O'Neill, who claimed there was no passage from the back wound into the body. And he continued, as late as 2009, to claim the doctors initially concluded the large head wound was a wound of both entrance and exit.

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Had Rankin viewed the Zapruder Film by that time? (or did he ever see it during his WC tenure) .

He would have seen the President reacting to a wound in the throat well before the head shot.

He had not viewed it by that time.

He had to have seen the 2 Life Magazine issues in 1963 I would assume

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Had Rankin viewed the Zapruder Film by that time? (or did he ever see it during his WC tenure) .

He would have seen the President reacting to a wound in the throat well before the head shot.

He had not viewed it by that time.

He had to have seen the 2 Life Magazine issues in 1963 I would assume

You're correct. The 11-29-63 Life Magazine did note Kennedy's clutching at his throat before he was struck in the head. There is no reason to believe this would cause Rankin to reject the words of the almighty FBI, which claimed, in its 1-13-63 Supplemental report, that:

"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length. There is a slit...in the overlap of the shirt the President was wearing...The slit has the characteristics of an exit hole...There is also a nick on the left side of the tie knot, which possibly was caused by the same projectile...The coat and shirt were x-rayed for metal fragments...but none were found...The Chief Pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital had advised that the projectile which had entered the President's skull region had disintegrated into at least 40 particles..."

And had thereby suggested what it had privately been telling the media--that the throat wound was caused by a small fragment from the bullet creating the head wound.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, can we get back to Mark Lane?

How many people here have read his book Citizen Lane?

I either forgot or did not know that he also defended Banks and Means over the Wounded Knee Siege of 1973.

I am reading that chapter now, wow is it something?

I might have to do an addition to my elegy for Lane. Which, BTW, is the highest rated article we have ever published in the history of the web site. For the last three days it has been getting over 3000 hits and over 2500 visits.

Paul May must be tearing his hair out.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about Lipsey was not that I doubt the accuracy of his recollections. His recollections mirror my own assessment of the medical evidence. My point was that there is no reason to believe he spoke to the press, or than anyone present at the autopsy spoke to the press, as background for the multiple press articles pouring out in December 63, in which the throat wound was explained by a fragment from the bullet creating the large head wound (and NOT a separate bullet, as per Lipsey).

Humes reported a head wound located near the external occipital protuberance. The newspapers reported that a fragment of this bullet came out through the front of the neck. Lipsey said precisely this same thing to the HSCA. (Yes, Lipsey also talked of another bullet that caused the blowout. But that is not what we are discussing here.)

I don't know how the newspapers got this information. Maybe it was from the FBI as you say. My point is that it corroborates what Lipsey said about the EOP-to-neck path of the bullet fragment. And that what Lipsey said indicates Humes knew about the throat wound at the time of the autopsy.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I thought it was common knowledge among CTers that there were actually two bullets to the head... the one that entered near the EOP, and one whose entrance and exit were part of the occipital/parietal blowout. I need to check into this. Maybe Lipsey is the only person who reported it.

As discussed ad nauseum in Chapter 2 of my website, these articles came about as a result of a leak, almost certainly from the FBI. When the Warren Commission refused to simply sign off on their report, the FBI (presumably with a nudge from Johnson) decided to take matters into their own hands and leak the substance of their report. This leak was then discussed in the WC's executive sessions. In any event, there is no reason--zero--to believe any of these articles came about as a result of the mainstream media's dogged pursuit of the truth, and its development of sources with the inside scoop on the medical evidence. This simply did not happen.

Right. I didn't say that happened. It was clearly leaked.

When I first started writing about the medical evidence in 2004, Sandy, I was the only researcher claiming the large head wound was a separate wound from the wound by the EOP.

Most LNs believed the bullet entered near the cowlick, and that the EOP entrance didn't exist.

Many if not most CTs believed there was a large blow-out wound on the back of the head from a shot impacting on the front of the head, and that the EOP entrance was a hoax.

No one but no one was writing about Clark's impression the large head wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit.

No one but no one was writing about Lipsey, and his claim the autopsy doctors initially agreed with Clark's assessment.

No one but no one was writing about Lipsey and Robinson's recollection the EOP entrance was probed, and found to correlate with the throat wound.

These were all aspects of the medical evidence first developed on my website and reported on this forum.

In 2013, I realized that many of the top researchers were now claiming the large head wound was a tangential wound. I'd like to think that was a tipping point.

And you now seem anxious to discuss the possibility a bullet descended in the neck and exited from the throat wound. Maybe this will prove another tipping point.

Pat, this is so weird because the large wound of both entrance and exit is ingrained in my mind. It's not something I learned since joining the forum last November. And I didn't read Lipsey's testimony till after I became a forum member. (I didn't even know where to find WC or HSCA testimony before I joined.) So where did my brain get this information?

The only book I've read that discusses the head wound is Best Evidence. I'll have to look at it to see if it somehow got me thinking the large wound was of both an entrance and exit.

.....................

Okay, I just did some searching in BE. There is a chapter for the HSCA and in that chapter there is a section that discusses an "incomplete bone hole" on the back of the head. In other words, part of a hole located on the margin of the large wound. Again, this is on the back of the head. Boswell described it in a "1977 meeting," part of the HSCA investigation. Dr. Finck had described the same thing in his 1965 autopsy notes. (For the Garrison trial?) Finck's notes read "possibly of entrance." So they weren't even sure it was a bullet hole. Either that or they left open the possibility that it was an exit wound.

This is probably where I got the idea that the large wound included both the entrance and exit wounds. Since the EOP wound had already been discussed earlier in the book, I must have figured that it was a wound from a different bullet. I'm sure I wondered at the time what happened to that bullet.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat: Has anyone here read Citizen Lane?

No, I have not. I was hoping to watch the documentary that was supposed to accompany the book. But it never surfaced.

http://www.citizenlane.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1444256/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

https://vimeo.com/77633050

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj8FmOmTIE

http://www.hulu.com/watch/699571#i0,p413,d0

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to think that the film was never completed. When Len Osanic has Steve Jaffe on again, he should ask him that.

The book is pretty good. I had not read it before Lane's passing.

After having read certain passages, I think I am going to make it a goal of mine to read all of Lane's books.

Not just his JFK books, which I have already read.

What a career the guy had.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read Citizen Lane yet, but it's on my list. I've read his JFK books, and like those. I have his book on Jonestown, The Strongest Poison, and plan to read that soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...