Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 703
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Ja, det er jeg. Født i Tromsø, - oppvokst i Bodø. Nord for polarsirkelen.

(Yes I am. Born in Tromsø, - raised in Bodø. North of the arctic circle .)

Very interesting. Thank you. By the way, do you talk there about the assassination of Palme as much as Sweden do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have previously linked to the albums regarding;

the Norwegian magazine my Grandmother kept, published Dec 7th. '63 - (just to provide a personal perspective, as well as a perspective from half a globe away. She acted like a family member had died, (an example of JFK's impact around the world before cellphones etc. was invented. It was a bigger world then. ) ---------

and the day (Sept. 10th. '63) when LBJ visited my hometown, - and visited neighbors of my family. What my father and his cousin tell me, is that my father's uncle (her father) - actually turned down LBJ visiting him and his family (he was traumatized from WWII), because the stress and commotion it would cause. As his neighbor (Shirley) confirmed to me earlier this year: the stress with "all the police and security around him". Apart from that she described him as a "very nice, and ordinary guy". ---- Just a somewhat fun perspective, - since this man was to become the President of the United States, - roughly two and half months later.

I haven't read up (know literally nothing) about LBJ's Europe  - tour. My hometown Bodø was (among other cities/places) somewhat a strategic geographical location in the cold war (NATO) , - with our airbase (so close to Russia/The Soviet Union) - at times filled with American aircraft etc. ( I really know very little about this ) . Secrecy regarding this persist to this day.

The first four years of my life , - my parents, me and my sister lived a couple of miles ashore on a small island. --- One island located not too far from it, - - my father insist, - -  was (and perhaps is still owed by) purchased by the Norwegian government. The intent was , according to him, - that the Americans practiced the dropping of napalm, - and other types of bombs. From the air. There. ----- He remembers , perhaps in '81-'82, - that they took the boat, and went there. It had a tower/observation-point, - as well as the whole island, covered with craters.

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

I doubt Norwegians talk about the Palme - assassination as much as Swedish people. Sweden will never get over that one. Especially since the identity of the assassin has been a controversial issue ever since 1986. I remember the morning, waking up, and watching on TV, --  footage from Stockholm, - depicting the pool of blood in the street , - outside the cinema.

Btw. post written in a big hurry, - so it is most certainly full of grammatical errors. I can irritate myself about that later. Have to run.

Have a nice day !

Edited by Trygve V. Jensen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Well thanks for that Steve ! Initiated the first smile of the day. Never underestimate a compliment.

I had English as a subject in class, - since the age of 9. - I somehow doubt you had Norwegian as a mandatory subject in school .

Trygve,

 

Of all the wild speculations, hunches and guesses that I have read on this Forum, or any other Internet forum, your guess is the closest I have ever read that comes closest to being true.

 

*smile*

 

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steve Thomas said:

Trygve,

 

Of all the wild speculations, hunches and guesses that I have read on this Forum, or any other Internet forum, your guess is the closest I have ever read that comes closest to being true.

 

*smile*

 

Steve Thomas

Now you made me smile twice in one day. Make that three. New record! Thanks.

Have a great day !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in  accordance with the approval of  'higher authority').

Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed.

One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement.  The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  

His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports".   Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!"  

Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!"  

Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him.  Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory.  During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged.

Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times.  So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966.  Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull."  

As I noted in Chapter 9 of Best Evidence ("A Confrontation with Liebeler") which records in detail what happened on October 24 1966, when I first showed him that passage (which was a discovery that I made the day before), he was astonished; and when he wrote the memo, I met with him and one of his law students, the late Stephen Myers (who co-founded Jacoby and Myers), for a "prep session."In the memo, Liebeler gave me full credit for making the discovery mentioning me twice by name.  I don't believe there's any other researcher who had a comparable experience--i.e., finding something of that significance in the published records of the Commission, and being taken so seriously by a former WC attorney that he wrote a memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the other Commissioners, the entire legal staff, plus RFK and the White House.

In the years following, I came upon other data which has left no doubt in my mind that by the time Air Force One landed at Andrews, RFK (and very likely Kenneth O'Donnell) knew perfectly well that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin (and that "the situation" had been conveyed to RFK, via radio communication with someone else); but (and this is important) that Jacqueline Kennedy had no idea that this was so, and (frankly) would have freaked out if she had ever thought that that was the case.  Of course, the fact that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin is not proof that it was altered; the two issues are quite separate. Stay tuned.

DSL

4/16/2018 - 10:50 AM PDT

Orange County, California

 

 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in  accordance with the approval of  'higher authority').

Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed.

One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement.  The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  

His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports".   Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!"  

Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!"  

Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him.  Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory.  During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged.

Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times.  So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966.  Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull."  

As I noted in Chapter 9 of Best Evidence ("A Confrontation with Liebeler") which records in detail what happened on October 24 1966, when I first showed him that passage (which was a discovery that I made the day before), he was astonished; and when he wrote the memo, I met with him and one of his law students, the late Stephen Myers (who co-founded Jacoby and Myers), for a "prep session."In the memo, Liebeler gave me full credit for making the discovery mentioning me twice by name.  I don't believe there's any other researcher who had a comparable experience--i.e., finding something of that significance in the published records of the Commission, and being taken so seriously by a former WC attorney that he wrote a memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the other Commissioners, the entire legal staff, plus RFK and the White House.

In the years following, I came upon other data which has left no doubt in my mind that by the time Air Force One landed at Andrews, RFK (and very likely Kenneth O'Donnell) knew perfectly well that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin (and that "the situation" had been conveyed to RFK, via radio communication with someone else); but (and this is important) that Jacqueline Kennedy had no idea that this was so, and (frankly) would have freaked out if she had ever thought that that was the case.  Of course, the fact that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin is not proof that it was altered; the two issues are quite separate. Stay tuned.

DSL

4/16/2018 - 10:50 AM PDT

Orange County, California

 

 

Thank you for your reply. I have always wondered if the "surgery of the head" statement was based on an initial impression that the skull flap looked like the kind of skull flap from a craniotomy. But having that flap created from the shooting would go a long way in explaining the Zapruder FIlm and the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described the large head wound they caught a glimpse of.

 

On O'Neill: he apparently described witnessing things to the ARRB that there is no way he saw considering the 1:45 AM fragment delivery to the FBI lab and the 2:00 AM teletype.

starting on page 25 of the pdf:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

REVISED AND EDITED - 4/17/2018 - 6:35 AM PDT

Micah: The basis for all medical statements made in the report of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy is a serious issue, which came up from the very first day day that I brought the Sibert and O'Neill report statement about "surgery of the head area" to Libeler's attention on October 24th, 1966; an issue which he then stressed as a major point that ought to be addressed in his memo to Chief Justice Warren (and the others ) in his 13 page  memo dated 8 November 1966, and which was transmitted on to all recipients on 16 Nov 1966.   That "medical" statement has nothing too do with the FBI agents observations of a "scalp flap from a craniotomy" --even though I would agree (and wrote in chapter 18 of Best Evidence [titled "The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy"] that the scalp was indeed "flapped," as I quoted Dr Boswell as having stated exactly that in his appearance before the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) of the HSCA.

But again: that (i.e., that "data," or that "visual appearance") is not (i.e., "was not" ) the basis for the FBI statement--at least not according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and the FBI hierarchy.  After I made a fuss about that "surgery" statement (when I called FBI Agent Sibert on November 2nd or 3rd, which led to Sibert sending an FBI "telex" to Headquarters; and after I laid out the issue in writing (in my letter to Director Hoover on November 9), and after Professor Liebeler flagged the statement in his Memorandum dated Nov. 8th (which was widely distributed on November 16th, as I have noted)--all of this happening in November 1966--Director Hoover then issued a statement to the press, which was published in the New York Times on 25 November 1966.  This FBI statement laid out the guidelines for how to properly interpret "medical statements" in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report.  These statements, explained FBI Director Hoover, were based on (or "recorded") "oral statements made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of autopsy."  And they were based on notes made by the FBI agents at the time.  Bottom line: they are evidence of words spoken, i.e., of an oral utterance.  Think of them as the "FBI soundtrack" of what happened during the autopsy.  I addressed all of this in Chapter 12 of  Best Evidence, and that is why I titled that chapter "An Oral Utterance."

Therefore, it is completely unwarranted for you to ascribe to the FBI agents that they made visual observations about a scalp "flap".  They recorded what the doctors said, and the doctors were focused (according to a detailed conversation I had with Sibert in 1990) on the enormous size of the hole in JFK's skull.  (and yes: the doctors may well have been focused on the existence of any flaps; and if they were, then that may have influenced what they said).  But. . . :  it is what Dr. Humes said--not what he saw--that was recorded in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. And that is the key to understanding what the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report is all about.  As I said, it is akin to an "FBI soundtrack" of the event--at least, that is (or "was") the stated position of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And that is why he (Hoover) was able to say to the press, on November 25, 1966, that there was no fundamental inconsistency between the FBI report of the autopsy, and the Naval autopsy report published by the Warren Commission.  Said Hoover: "FBI reports record the oral statements of the examining doctors at the time of autopsy; the autopsy report records the final conclusions of the pathologists." (Approx., from memory).

For more on the centrality of the sheer "hole size," just view the Best Evidence Research Video, and the part where Paul O'Connor describes the reaction of those in the room when he pulled the sheet down exposing the head.  O'Connor said --and this was filmed in October 1980): "There was a gasp in the room, and I looked down and said "My God, there's no brain."  As FBI agent O'Neill told Wayne C., the businessman who was a personal acquaintance of O'Neill (and who I got to know quite well, circa 1992), "Wayne, there was no brain."

Of course, common sense suggests that when O'Neill made that statement (years later), he didn't have to be "told" by a pathologist that there was no brain; he could simply look, and see that for himself.  On this score: remember what Paul O'Connor told the HSCA when interviewed in August 1977 (and repeated to me when I first spoke with him two years later, in August 1979, and then on camera in October 1989: "the cranium was empty.")  As O'Connor said to me on camera (in October 1980), when I stated --in the spirit of a mild cross examination--that the Warren Report contained an official document (as part of the Bethesda autopsy protocol) that purported to be the examination of a brain, he looked directly at the camera, and said, very calmly and with great sincerity, "Well I don't know where they got it from; because it certainly wasn't the President's."

O'Neill lied when he appeared before the ARRB in 1997, and attempted to rewrite history on this point (claiming one third of the brain was still there.   Not true.)  By that time, O"Neill  was voluble, in conversation(s) with third parties, expressing his intense dislike (if not outright hatred) of me and my book.  Too bad, but he couldn't deal with the fact that, if my analysis was correct, the FBI "blew it," and were played for fools, when it came to the goings on at Bethesda on the night of President Kennedy's assassination.

IMHO: your focus should not be on "fragment delivery" but on "words spoken" because therein lies the critical evidence, historically speaking, as to "who knew what" (and "when") and that is what is at the heart of the case for "obstruction of justice" that could have been pursued had there been a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the JFK assassination, in the aftermath of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence,

DSL - 4/16/2018 - 6:40 PM PDT

Orange County, California

 

 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

REVISED AND EDITED - 4/17/2018 - 6:35 AM PDT

Micah: The basis for all medical statements made in the report of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy is a serious issue, which came up from the very first day day that I brought the Sibert and O'Neill report statement about "surgery of the head area" to Libeler's attention on October 24th, 1966; an issue which he then stressed as a major point that ought to be addressed in his memo to Chief Justice Warren (and the others ) in his 13 page  memo dated 8 November 1966, and which was transmitted on to all recipients on 16 Nov 1966.   That "medical" statement has nothing too do with the FBI agents observations of a "scalp flap from a craniotomy" --even though I would agree (and wrote in chapter 18 of Best Evidence [titled "The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy"] that the scalp was indeed "flapped," as I quoted Dr Boswell as having stated exactly that in his appearance before the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) of the HSCA.

But again: that (i.e., that "data," or that "visual appearance") is not (i.e., "was not" ) the basis for the FBI statement--at least not according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and the FBI hierarchy.  After I made a fuss about that "surgery" statement (when I called FBI Agent Sibert on November 2nd or 3rd, which led to Sibert sending an FBI "telex" to Headquarters; and after I laid out the issue in writing (in my letter to Director Hoover on November 9), and after Professor Liebeler flagged the statement in his Memorandum dated Nov. 8th (which was widely distributed on November 16th, as I have noted)--all of this happening in November 1966--Director Hoover then issued a statement to the press, which was published in the New York Times on 25 November 1966.  This FBI statement laid out the guidelines for how to properly interpret "medical statements" in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report.  These statements, explained FBI Director Hoover, were based on (or "recorded") "oral statements made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of autopsy."  And they were based on notes made by the FBI agents at the time.  Bottom line: they are evidence of words spoken, i.e., of an oral utterance.  Think of them as the "FBI soundtrack" of what happened during the autopsy.  I addressed all of this in Chapter 12 of  Best Evidence, and that is why I titled that chapter "An Oral Utterance."

Therefore, it is completely unwarranted for you to ascribe to the FBI agents that they made visual observations about a scalp "flap".  They recorded what the doctors said, and the doctors were focused (according to a detailed conversation I had with Sibert in 1990) on the enormous size of the hole in JFK's skull.  (and yes: the doctors may well have been focused on the existence of any flaps; and if they were, then that may have influenced what they said).  But. . . :  it is what Dr. Humes said--not what he saw--that was recorded in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. And that is the key to understanding what the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report is all about.  As I said, it is akin to an "FBI soundtrack" of the event--at least, that is (or "was") the stated position of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And that is why he (Hoover) was able to say to the press, on November 25, 1966, that there was no fundamental inconsistency between the FBI report of the autopsy, and the Naval autopsy report published by the Warren Commission.  Said Hoover: "FBI reports record the oral statements of the examining doctors at the time of autopsy; the autopsy report records the final conclusions of the pathologists." (Approx., from memory).

For more on the centrality of the sheer "hole size," just view the Best Evidence Research Video, and the part where Paul O'Connor describes the reaction of those in the room when he pulled the sheet down exposing the head.  O'Connor said --and this was filmed in October 1980): "There was a gasp in the room, and I looked down and said "My God, there's no brain."  As FBI agent O'Neill told Wayne C., the businessman who was a personal acquaintance of O'Neill (and who I got to know quite well, circa 1992), "Wayne, there was no brain."

Of course, common sense suggests that when O'Neill made that statement (years later), he didn't have to be "told" by a pathologist that there was no brain; he could simply look, and see that for himself.  On this score: remember what Paul O'Connor told the HSCA when interviewed in August 1977 (and repeated to me when I first spoke with him two years later, in August 1979, and then on camera in October 1989: "the cranium was empty.")  As O'Connor said to me on camera (in October 1980), when I stated --in the spirit of a mild cross examination--that the Warren Report contained an official document (as part of the Bethesda autopsy protocol) that purported to be the examination of a brain, he looked directly at the camera, and said, very calmly and with great sincerity, "Well I don't know where they got it from; because it certainly wasn't the President's."

O'Neill lied when he appeared before the ARRB in 1997, and attempted to rewrite history on this point (claiming one third of the brain was still there.   Not true.)  By that time, O"Neill  was voluble, in conversation(s) with third parties, expressing his intense dislike (if not outright hatred) of me and my book.  Too bad, but he couldn't deal with the fact that, if my analysis was correct, the FBI "blew it," and were played for fools, when it came to the goings on at Bethesda on the night of President Kennedy's assassination.

IMHO: your focus should not be on "fragment delivery" but on "words spoken" because therein lies the critical evidence, historically speaking, as to "who knew what" (and "when") and that is what is at the heart of the case for "obstruction of justice" that could have been pursued had there been a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the JFK assassination, in the aftermath of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence,

DSL - 4/16/2018 - 6:40 PM PDT

Orange County, California

 

 

Humes and Boswell couldn't have thought the large head wound seen on the official x-rays and photos simply looked like a craniotomy, and communicated that just upon removing the wrappings from the body to the audience?

BTW I think O'Neill may be intentionally lying because he told the ARRB that he saw the Gawler's funeral team doing the dressing and casketing, which almost certainly took place after 1 AM because they were in a hurry and their work wasn't done until 3:30-4:00 AM. Sibert was much more honest about the time they left.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
On 4/11/2018 at 2:28 AM, David Von Pein said:

Trygve,

The man in the red tie at Love Field is NBC reporter Robert MacNeil. (The same MacNeil who might very well have been directed to a phone by Lee Oswald just outside the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.)

Here's a news report narrated by MacNeil on 11/22/63:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B294SBAT_oH6UUYzc0ZLY1dHQUk/view

Also & BTW....

My thanks to Trygve for posting some fairly rare Love Field photos above that I have never seen before. You've provided me with a couple more images for my Kennedy Gallery. Much obliged. :)

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2018/04/kennedy-gallery-470.html

 

Robert MacNeil's report from Nov 30th. Not a word about Oswald, that was only after the Secret Service had a "word" with him.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

140618-Scan-for-bart-2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 4:29 PM, Bart Kamp said:

Robert MacNeil's report from Nov 30th. Not a word about Oswald, that was only after the Secret Service had a "word" with him.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

Thank you  Malcolm Blunt and ALL of those who have contributed to this thread; I keep returning to it and the head always shakes when I do.

For YEARS MacNeil played on that "encounter" with LHO--even if others might have said it about him.

A couple of other things stick out: he enters 'about 4 minutes' after the shooting and leaves  before ANY cops show up! 3 guys were calm, standing around, but crack reporter McNeil didn't mentally record ANY traits of the three.He seems most interested in reporting that he did his duty by 12:36 by calling in.

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...