Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't understand why it was necessary to limit the number of shooters to just one. [As was effectively done by the government coverup.]

It wasn't.

Ron,

Just to be clear, you are saying that there was no desire by the assassination conspirators to cover up the fact that there were multiple shooters. Is that right?

If so, then how do you explain the seeming fact that it was known very early on that Kennedy's body needed to be snatched and altered? Altered so that evidence of multiple shooter be covered up as well as possible.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for your answer Cliff. I see now that I misspoke when I wrote it. (Maybe that's the reason nobody else has attempted to answer it.)

Here is my corrected question. I hope that you or anybody else can answer it.

If the goal of the plotters was to make it appear that the assassination was a Russian plot, why try to limit the blame to one shooter?? Why not allow Oswald to be caught (but quickly killed) so that the his so-called Soviet ties could be discovered -- thus implicating the Russians -- AND also allow the discovery that other shooters had been involved as well? (In other words, a shoot team under Soviet control or influence.)

I don't understand why it was necessary to limit the number of shooters to just one.

Doesn't this go back to the argument about the concern for starting a WWIII expressed by LBJ before the WC is formed?  Maybe this also militates LBJ being the mastermind, and that he didn't buy the false flag of Soviet-Cuban complicity in the assassination.

Let me rephrase the question to make it very simple:

Did the assassination conspirators want to hide the fact that multiple shooters were involved? If so, why?

The fact that the body was snatched so quickly -- apparently to cover up evidence of multiple shooters -- makes it seem like that was a part of the assassination plotters plan.

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ron,

Just to be clear, you are saying that there was no desire by the assassination conspirators to cover up the fact that there were multiple shooters. Is that right?

.......

 

Sandy, I think that there is a bit of confusion. Ron is saying, I think, that in fact the number of shooters was greater than one. On the other hand, the cover story was that there was only one.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 10, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Lifton]

On 4/7/2017 at 8:04 AM, Paul Brancato said:

I'd like to keep the thread on track, but don't want to be too insistent. 

Way back when, on this thread, its originator (Paul Brancato, who started this thread, on April 3) made the polite request that he wished the thread could stay on topic.

He made this request after another poster (Paul Trejo) entered the thread, and –it seems to me, anyway—has been using it to promote a  (largely) unrelated thesis about Walker being responsible for the Kennedy assassination, and prominently mentioning---both at the beginning of his post, and again at the end—that (somehow) this is all related to the validity of my work, which contains a chapter noting that there was, or appears to have been, a “pre-autopsy autopsy” on the body of President Kennedy.

In other words, there has been an attempt to link two issues that I believe are quite unrelated: the validity of Trejo's views on Walker, with my own analysis of  the condition of JFK’s body at the time of the Bethesda autopsy, and the evidence (as set forth in Chapter 18 of Best Evidence) that JFK’s body, at the time of the Bethesda autopsy, exhibited explicit indications of having already been subjected to a (somewhat crude) autopsy examination, what I referred to, in that chapter, as a “Pre-Autopsy Autopsy”.   

We're now on the fifteenth web page of this thread, and these posts (mainly by  Trejo) have been so many, and so lengthy, that someone browsing though this material for the first time might think the thread was titled: “Was Walker responsible for Kennedy’s assassination?” 

In one of your most recent posts, Paul, you have numbered your points, and they began at #1 and ran out to #22, and –for the most part—these points really have nothing to do with the question originally posed by Paul Broncato.   Here is the title of the thread, stated in the form of a question:

 “Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?”

At the outset (on April 3^rd, see the very first Web page) I jumped in with my own reconstruction; but then you somehow took over the discussion and have steered it way off track, and almost into another world. I'm sure you're not doing this out of any bad motive; Walker, for whatever reason, is the center of your universe, and you really do believe he is at the center of the plot to murder President Kennedy.

I disagree, and think of Walker as being out there on the fringe, an outlyer who inhabits some "other" world.

THE “OTHER WORLD”

Your latest post has some 22 numbered points, and I have some observations to make, and I will number mine, too:

#1 If you really have 22 numbered points to make, then you have the makings of a substantial manuscript, and perhaps you should write a manuscript about the subject (Walker); which you could (and perhaps should) distribute as an e-book.  Then people could decide for themselves whether or not they agree with your thesis, based on the evidence presented.

#2: I realize that the label  “Walker” fits into the Kennedy assassination event, but certainly not in the all-encompassing manner which you have suggested.  Jupiter is the 5^th planet around our sun, and the largest in the solar system. It is so wide—almost 90,000 miles at its equator—that, according to NASA, “all the other planets in the solar system could fit inside it.” Furthermore, besides its famous rings, there are 67 known “moons of Jupiter,” the four most massive of which were discovered by Galileo back in 1610.   Their names are so exotic that people even name their children after these moons (Europa, Ganymede, Io, Callisto, Thebe) and probably there is a restaurant somewhere in the world, that even names a pasta dishes in honor of one or more of these moons).

However, if you spent years of your life studying Europa or Thebe or Lysithea or Erinome or Harpalyke or Eukalade—and someone asked you a simple question about the solar system, and you then delivered a 10,000 word thesis on Aoede—you might understand why that would produce some impatience, if not irritation.  And if you were in a pasta restaurant, where the menu featured the names of a few of these moons of Jupiter as the names of appetizers, much less entrees,  and someone asked which one you wanted, and you insisted on carrying on about Taygete (which wasn’t even on the menu), the other diners present might mention that you were way off topic, and that if you kept it up, the restaurant would close and the waitress would go home before anyone had a chance to eat.

So its in that spirit that I write, and remain hopeful that you will perhaps get the message—i.e., please attempt to stay on topic, and try to refrain from delivering a numbered thesis which (at this point)  goes out to Number 22, and which, by the way, is still only one third (approx.) of the number of moons of Jupiter.

Now, back to basics, because I do want to mention Walker, but only in passing:

(I will use letters, instead of numbers, to avoid any resemblance to my going on some major –and largely irrelevant—side-trip about the moons of Jupiter).

MY TAKE ON WALKER –The Official Version –Why is Walker Relevant?

 (a) Walker is relevant mainly because of the events of the night of April 10, 1963.  What happened that evening is relevant to the events of November 22, 1963,  because Oswald came running back to his apartment; told Marina that he had shot at Walker, turned on the radio, listened to newscasts, and then told Marina (according to Marina) that he was sorry that he didn’t kill him, because Walker was like Hitler, and that he should have been killed early on, and that had that occurred, World War II would have been prevented. All of this was duly reported in the Chapter 4 of the Warren Report ("The Assassin") under the label "Prior Attempt to Kill."

(b) We all know that, prior to Oswald's return that evening, Marina had found a note,  written in Russian, and allegedly written by Lee,  which gave instructions as to what to do should he be arrested.  Further, it is well know that this note was interpreted in the Warren Report --and reasonably so, if one thinks of Oswald as a fruitcake--as  evidence of premeditation.

(c ) We all know that Marina confronted Oswald with the note as soon as he returned, breathless, on the night of April 10th.   That's when he told her what he had done earlier that evening (i.e., that he had shot at Walker).  Marina was seriously upset and told Lee that she was keeping the note, and that if ever did anything like that again, she would take the note to the police.  Seven months later, when JFK was shot, and the authorities came to Ruth Paine's home, Marina mentioned nothing about what happened the previous April.  Further, when they began to search the house, she concealed the note by putting it inside a cookbook.   The note remained concealed until December 2^nd, 1963, when Ruth Paine turned the cookbook over to the Irving, Texas, police department. The police turned the book over to the Secret Service, and SS Agent Leon Gopadze found the note on the night of Monday, December 2.  Gopadze tried to speak with her about it on the phone that night, but she was evasive. He visited her the next day (Tuesday, December 3) and confronted her with the note.    At that time, she was confronted with the note (which had been in a cookbook Ruth Paine and delivered to the Irving Police, requesting that it be returned to Marina).  It was turned over to the Secret Service.  Leon Gopadze, a Russian speaking agent, made a routine inspection of the cook book, and discovered the note. On Monday night, December 2, he called Marina and attempted to question her; but she was evasive.  The next day, he visited her, confronted her with the note, and asked for an explanation.   Finally, with her defenses  apparently broken,  she provided her (basic) account of what had happened on the night of April 10^th, 1963, and that's how the Secret Service first learne of the Walker episode.  (See WCE 1785 for Gopadze's report). Within hours, Marina  was interviewed by FBI agents, and provided a similar account.  (See WCE 1784).  The episode of "the incriminating note" is one facet of Oswald and Walker.  And there is more. . .

(d) It is a matter of record that Oswald, along with Michael Paine, attended a speech given by General Walker on October 25^th , 1963.

(e) In the Speculations and Rumors appendix (Appendix 12), the Warren Report dutifully reports the allegation that Oswald had Walker’s phone number, in his address book, but that proved to be incorrect.

(f) The FBI concluded, based on arguable evidence, that Oswald’s rifle was the weapon that fired the slug recovered from the Walker residence.  It may well be true that Oswald’s rifle—the one he ordered from Klein’s in Chicago on March 12, 1963—fired the recovered the slug, but—important as that may be (if true)—that is not the focus of my analysis. (Read on, for more info).

Now you can add “this ‘n that” to the above list, but that’s about the gist of it: Marina Oswald's account, the note, the ballistic evidence; and, of course, Walker's account of having been sitting near the window, doing his taxes, when a bullet was fired into the room, which--he said--narrowly missed him.

If Oswald had indeed  attempted to kill Walker, that would certainly indicate he had a proclivity for violence, that he was willing to assassinate a public figure, and so of course all of that would raise the probability that, contrary to his denials, he was in fact JFK’s assassin.  And basically, that's how the Warren Commission utilized Walker.  It appears in Chapter four of the Warren Report under the heading: "Prior Attempt to Kill."  Note: not that he (Oswald) did not actually kill anyone; but that, supposedly, he had been involved in a "prior attempt" to do so.

WHAT DOES WALKER HAVE TO DO WITH 11/22/63?

So . . What bearing, if any, does this have on Kennedy’s assassination seven months later, and specifically, is it relevant in attempting to address the issue of whether those who were involved in planning JFK’s murder, and executing that plan (whatever it consisted of) were “also involved” in the cover-up?  One thing seems certain: if the two are --that is "were"--related,  and if Oswald was in fact framed for JFK's murder, then those planning the future assassination of President Kennedy were either very lucky in choosing a fall guy who had a proclivity for shooting at public figures, or showed considerable foresight in fabricating an event, seven months before Kennedy's death, that would greatly enhance his "political profile" as a nut, or, simply put, as a future "lone assassin."

Now this ventures into the very area posed by Paul Brancato's question: was the original design of the Kennedy assassination, and any "cover-up" which followed, all part and parcel of one plan, or where these "separate" plans executed by different individuals (or groups).

This question of "Before the fact" versus "After the Fact" is a question that, to some extent, is addressed—implicitly—in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence, titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception," which, essentially argues that the plan to alter the body was, from the outset, part of the original plan to murder President Kennedy.  But before getting to that subject (which will have to be the subject of a separate post), let me return to (and hopefully finish up with ) the matter of General Walker.

My own focus on Walker:  For the benefit of those who may be unaware—and I have not advertised this very much at all—I spent quite a bit of time on the issue of Walker, “way back when.”  This included the study of all relevant files from the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas Sheriff, the FBI, and the Secret Service. Further, I obtained copies of all the relevant news stories at the time the Walker shooting occurred (April 1963); along with Warren Commission records of media broadcasts which established just when the matter was first brought up in the aftermath of JFK's murder.  

In addition, I was engaged in questioning three important witnesses:

(a) Questioning Marina Oswald Porter—who I knew quite well for about 15 years, from 1981 to about 1996—on the subject--repeatedly in telephone conversations, and then on camera, in a professionally filmed interview in June or July of 1990;

(b) Questioning on camera (Nov. 1996) the key witness--Walter ("Kirk") Coleman, who was 14 years old at that the time, and who lived in the house adjacent to the alleyway from which the shot was fired.  Coleman climbed up an a bicycle, looked over a fence, and saw the aftermath of the shooting: two men, running away, and getting into separate cars, one with the lights on and the motor running, one placing something in a back seat, and then driving off.  (Coleman's FBI Interview is WCE 2958).

(c ) July 1998: Spending hours with FBI Agent Robert Barrett, at his home in Alabama--the key FBI agent (along with Ivan Lee) in the Walker investigation. (In addition, Barrett was the agent present in the immediate aftermath of the Tippit shooting, and was the agent with whom DPD Captain Westbrook was speaking, when he was holding the "found" wallet, in his hand, and who--thumbing through that wallet--asked Barrett if he had ever heard of the name Oswald, or Alex Hidell etc.. (The matter of 'the wallet" will not be discussed here; it belongs on a separate thread).  Not only did I review the entire Walker affair with Barrett, most of our conversation was filmed.

Rest assured:I was completely immersed in the study of the Walker shooting, even though that is only one small compartment of the Kennedy assassination. I "lived" in that small compartment for quite some time, and on two trips to Dallas--once at my own expense, and another time on a trip paid for by the TV program HARDCOPY--I had the time to visit the Walker scene, and go over it very carefully.

In particular, my own “basic news research” (“BNF”, in my filing system) was very thorough, and I unearthed a story that was –as I recall—a bit earlier than Paul Trejo had found, provided that to him, and he thanked me for it.

This bears on an important point: when did the first indication surface that someone in the Dallas Police Department was attempting to link the shooting of Walker, which had occurred the previous April, with the assassination of President Kennedy, which had occurred on 11/22/63.  The answer, based on my own careful research into news records, was on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and the effort consisted of some newsman asking such a question of (as I recall) Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry.  The first “print” story, as I recall, was in the newspapers by Saturday morning, 11/23.

My own basic conclusions about Walker:

(a) If we knew the full truth about Walker, we’d know significantly more about who was involved in the frame-up of Oswald, as “the assassin”; because that, I believe, is what the “Walker incident” was all about. It was not a serious attempt to kill Walker, but a staged event involving a deliberate missed shot.  (FWIW: Some local FBI agents also thought it was staged.)

(b) Lee Oswald was a participant in this staged event. Whether he actually stood at the fence and fired a rifle, I do not know; but—based on Marina’s multiply-told accounts to me—I have no doubt that he came running into the house that night and said—I stress “said”—that he had shot at Walker. 

(c ) Walker was the event which caused Marina to think of her husband as possibly being unstable, even “crazy”; that he was not the “normal” person she had met and married in the Soviet Union; but someone else, instead. Someone with a much darker side.  BUT. . .

(d) It was all a fake.  Lee Oswald was, in fact, involved in “gas-lighting” Marina. (And to those who do not know what that term means—the deliberate manipulation of another person’s perceptions—then use Google, and, while you’re at it, also look up the famous movie “Gaslight”, with Ingrid Bergman. The subject of “gaslighting” has come up recently in connection with Trump’s campaign for the presidency; but I would stick to the classical material, and the famous movie).

TIME OUT FOR A DEFINITION:

            From the dictionary:  Gaslight (a verb): “manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.”

            From Wikipedia:

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. ... The term owes its origin to Gas Light, a 1938 play and 1944 film.

Today, the phrase “gaslighting” is often associated with emotional abuse.  For example:  “Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse where the abuser manipulates situations repeatedly to trick the victim into distrusting his or her own memory. . “

GASLIGHTING AND MARINA (and the night of April 10, 1963)

(e ) Marina, of course, had no idea that she was being “gas-lighted”; first of all, she didn’t speak very much English in the Spring of 1963; Second, she took everything at face value. And she took it all very seriously.  I can assure you that the events of that night deeply affected her perception of her husband, and was a significant factor in causing her to come around to the view she had—by the time of her Warren Commission testimony—that her husband was Kennedy’s assassin.

(f) Footnote to (e): I met Marina in January 1981, when in Dallas on my Best Evidence book tour. After that, we spoke frequently—on and off for about 15 years.  I kept fairly accurate records; was impressed by many things she said to me, and finally persuaded her to “go on camera”. We had an in-depth professionally filmed interview in June or July, 1990. Subsequently, some of that film was aired on HARDCOPY, in (about) 3 separate, consecutive episodes, and you can see excerpts on YouTube.   That’s when she said, on camera, what Lee’s attitude (towards JFK) really was. Quoting (from memory): “Lee adored John Kennedy.”

(g) Walker’s Phone  Number:  Regarding the original assertion in the Warren Report about Oswald having Walker’s phone number in his possession, I did a lot of documentary research in this area,  and using records not generally perceived as available, and in Final Charade, will produce something quite different from the official answer: Yes, Lee did have Walker’s phone number.  (Exactly what that proves, is not clear; and its subject to a variety of interpretations).

Walker is important only because it deals with preparations for the frame-up of Oswald, and for the manipulation of the perceptions of Marina; IMHO: It is not significant in attempting to determine who was directly a participant in the shooting of Kennedy on November 22, 1963.   Consequently: its my belief that all speculations about David Ferrie (and this person or that person, or the “ground crew” and the “kill team” etc.)—all of that can  be safely set aside. It is entirely irrelevant.  If anyone wishes to go down that path, then certainly they are free to do so, and the proper place for that is a full length manuscript.  That’s nothing more than another “grassy knoll theory” about the Kennedy assassination.

With regard to Kennedy’s murder as it actually unfolded: The “connectivity” between these two areas (Walker and Kennedy) can be found by pursuing the truth about why someone in the Dallas Police (or in the media) was (prematurely) attempting to connect Oswald to the Walker shooting on November 22, 1963.  This has to do with gas-lighting Marina Oswald, and—through her—promoting a false public view of her husband.

(h) The problem of the plotters. . . :

I have said previously—on this thread—that the assassination of Kennedy was “elegant” in conception, but bungled in execution.  A good example of this—of how Murphy’s Law upset the original plan—is what happened to the note apparently written by Lee Oswald. (I accept the expert’s identification of this note. And experts aside, Marina had a serious confrontation with Lee about the note. Lee never said: “You’re nuts! I didn’t write that!  How the heck did that note get into this apartment?!”  Not at all. To the contrary, he compared Walker to Hitler, and said that if Hitler had been assassinated, that would have prevented World War II.

In my opinion, this note was intended to be the fuse that would release this “stink bomb” against Oswald, but instead, and because of the unexpected protective action taken by Marina, none of this worked out as planned.  What was planned was the release of this information about Oswald's "prior attempt to kill" on November 22, 1963.  (Instead, certain players in this plot were undoubtedly scratching their heads and asking: "What the heck is going on?  Where the heck is that note?)  Bottom line: the story needed a fuse, but "the fuse" was nowhere to be found.

  (i)  The Walker Note.  This note was written by Oswald, at some point in time prior to the evening of April 10.  It was left, by Oswald, for “Marina to find.”  Marina found the note, and was concerned, but concealed its existence from the night of April 10^th until 11/22/63; at which point, the events of April 10^th came back to haunt her, and this note in particular became radioactive. Marina didn’t volunteer anything about it, but instead concealed it in a cookbook.  This is critically important: Marina realized that this note was incriminating, and so hid it in a cookbook (!).

 (ii) The Discovery of the Note: When the note was discovered about a week later when the cookbook was given to the Irving Police, by Ruth Paine, who had no idea that the cookbook contained the note.  Within a day or so, the unusual note inside—written in a foreign language—was found. And translated.  Marina was then confronted with this damning piece of evidence, and asked, in effect: “What the heck is this all about?  At that point, she melted, and that’s when was forced to tell the whole story. First, to SS Agent Leon Gopadze; and then to FBI Agent Wallace Heitman.  This  revelation—which followed an initial strategy of concealment—was a very big moment in Marina’s life: first of all, this evidence was “discovered”; second, she was caught having attempted to hide something.   Again:  she was forced to acknowledge, to SS and FBI agents who were interrogating her, what had happened on the night of April 10, 1963.  That’s when what I view as the “false public record” of who Oswald “actually was” began.  The source was Marina, but she was only reporting what had happened the previous April.  Moreover, if the note had been discovered in the original search of the Paine home (on 11/22), the discovery of such a note would have been headline news in the next day’s newspapers.  “JFK’s Assassin Had Tried To Murder Walker. Documentary Evidence Discovered” etc.

(i)  My acquaintanceship with Marina (and her subsequent turnaround).

I believe that I played a  role—over the course of about seven years—in “de-programming” Marina from many false ideas that she had about her husband.  All of this came to fruition in the fall of 1988, on the 25^th anniversary of the assassination, although I had nothing to do with the "finale."   That fall (Sept-Oct 1988, approx.), Myrna Blythe, Editor in Chief of the Ladies Home Journal, spent a day (or two, or three) with Marina, at her home. In a series of dramatic and emotional conversations, Marina poured out her heart to Blythe, the two bonded in some way, and Myrna wrote an important story—which was published in the November 1988 issue of the Ladies Homes Journal.  This marked  a major turn-around of sorts: the first time that Marina came out and changed her public position on her former husband’s guilt.  I had no prior knowledge of those interviews, but I am sure that Marina’s relationship with me, and with Mary Ferrell, and with JFK researcher Wallace Milam all played a role in stiffening Marina’s resolve and determination to free herself of her previous views about the case. (This of course created a major problem in the relationship that Marina had previously had with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, author of Marina and Lee (1977).  McMillan’s numerous interviews with Marina, starting around 1964, formed the basis for the portrait of Lee that was presented in her biography of the couple, as set forth in Marina and Lee.  It is important to understand that the portrait of Lee, as presented to (and published by) McMillan, is probably not incorrect. Its just that—years after the fact—Marina realized that she had been gaslighted (by Lee himself)  and so changed her interpretation of many events that had occurred in her past.

In other words: Don’t blame Marina, and don’t blame Priscilla McMillan, for this change.  This represented a change in interpretation of one’s past, a different way of “connecting the dots.”  Think of it (perhaps) as a hard disk that has been partitioned. Marina had her memories of Lee—the Lee that she thought was “real”—from March 17, 1961 (when they met at a dance), to November 22, 1963, when she heard the shocking news of JFK’s death, and then people from the Dallas County Sheriff’s showed up at Ruth Paine’s house, and she learned that her husband was a suspect in the president’s murder.  The next day she had her last face-to-face contact with Lee, when she spoke with him in the Dallas jail.  The day after that, Sunday, Lee Oswald was murdered.  From that point, and through her Warren Commission testimony (Feb 1964) and through her entire relationship with McMillan (whose book Marina and Lee was published in 1977), she became comfortable with thinking of Lee in one way.  I like to think that January 1981, a nd the publication of Best Evidence, marked a turning point—but I believe that in fact it occurred a year or two earlier. (Another subject).  In any event, the change did occur, and the result was dramatic.  This is not dissimilar to people who go through  life, through their 20s (for instance); and then discover—in their thirties (or even later)that they  were adopted; that their father, say, was really not their (birth) father; or that their father had a secret criminal history, or perhaps was even executed, as a murderer, for a crime they knew nothing about.  I am familiar with such situations.

(j) Around 1990, “Hollywood” became interested in Marina’s story.  At that point, she first fell into the hands of (or should I saw the “jaws” of ) David L. Wolper, the much-acclaimed documentary film producer who was also a  completely convinced Lone Nutter.  I was in steady touch with Marina at the time, provided some timely advice (where she might find an agent, etc), and –as I recollect (I have journals on all of this)—she basically told Wolper (the great “David L. Wolper”) to get lost; that she was fed up; that she was no longer the “innocent” Marina she used to be; and –and, most important—that she wanted nothing to do with him, and his view that she had married a monster.  That that whole thing was ridiculous. And that she now rejected that conception.

It was a great moment (for Marina, and this is based on my recollection).

So what happened next?  What did Wolper do?  He enlisted the service of his son, Mark Wolper, to handle the production of the “Marina Story”.

Mark was a completely different kind of fellow, and his involvement made all the difference.

Mark and Marina had a number of conversations, and Marina left no doubt in his mind (and this is my recollection), that unless he (David Wolper) cleaned up his act, she was not going to cooperate.   You have to know Marina, and see her really get angry, really get pissed off, to know how powerful she can be.

As I recall, Mark Wolper simply folded.  Basically, it was “OK,  ok, Marina. Whatever you say.” So they set out to produce something that was truthful.

Google “Mark Wolper” if you wish to know more, but here—in synopsis form—is what happened next.

To begin with, the movie that was produced was eventually called Fatal Deception: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald (1993). Millions watched that movie, and it was eventually shown “in re-runs” on the History Channel.

Here were the key players:

(1) The producer placed in charge of doing the Marina story was Bernard Sofronski (husband of actress Susan Dey).  Both are accomplished persons, and here is just one item from Sofronski’s IMdb bio:  “Sofronski is behind some of the highest rated and recognized drama films for TV including the controversial true story, Playing for Time - a film about an all-female orchestra playing for Nazis in a concentration camp in order to stay alive.”

(2)  Sofronski hired writer Steve Bello, to do the screenplay—an experienced and talented screenwriter (and producer) best known for Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, Mancuso –FBI. (See the IMDB data base, if you wish to know more).

(3) The Director hired for the project was Robert Dornheim, originally from Romania, and well known for  Spartacus (2004), The Ten Commandments (2006) and Sins of the Father (2002).  His acclaimed film “Requiem for Dominic” became an important film in the 25^th anniversary of the Romanian revolution in 1989.

Early on, Sofronski and Bello interviewed Marina at length—and from those detailed, intense (taped) interviews, I learned several facts I had not known before, and which deepened my understanding of Marina.

(4) Bello then wrote a screenplay –a “teleplay,” since this was conceived of as a TV production.  It would, in part, be the story of how Marina had been deceived, and the evolution of her consciousness over the years.

(5) There had to be a way, in the “storyline”, for how Marina became aware of much of the information that contradicted her previous view. As I understand it, the producer and/or writer simply asked Marina, and she identified me as a key person.  So my “character” was introduced into the screenplay, and played by actor Robert Picardo (who later achieved fame on “China Beach,” “Startrek: Voyager” and many others (See the IMdB data base, his filmography goes on for pages).

(6) The actress playing Marina was  the very beautiful Helena Bonham Carter.

I had a meeting with Dornheim at his home in Malibu, and quite a few conversations  (and some meetings) with Steve Bello.  Besides contributing my own insights about the entire situation, I provided certain other valuable data—specifically, copies of the filmed interview I had with Oswald’s youngest daughter, Rachel. Our agreement was that they could use the data for informational purpose, but not a foot would be screened. They kept their word, and Steve told me it was useful in writing the scenes about Oswald’s two daughters (June, the eldest, born in Minsk, on 2/15/62; and Rachel, born in Dallas, on 10/20/63).

(7) The “Plot Summary” as published on the IMDb data base, reads as follows:

The story of the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of shooting President Kennedy. Via flashbacks, the story traces the woman's life from her days in Russia, the turmoil following the assassination, raising her family, and coming to grips with the fact that she too may have been a pawn in a grand conspiracy.

This, then, is the role that I played in attempting to bring a faithful account of Marina’s experience to the screen.    Of course, it was very nice to see my name published in TV guide, beneath that of Helena Carter, and Picardo; and the entire experience deepened my own understanding of how deals are struck, how movies are made, and how film production works.

But probably the most important credit goes to Marina, who realized she’d been gas-lighted (my term) by various U.S. Government agencies and officials,  and who stood up to the great David L. Wolper and told him she was going to have nothing to do with him, if he dared to present her husband as some crazy person she had married, and who didn’t reveal his “true self” until November 22, 1963.  Those days were over.  Marina made clear that she would have nothing to do with any such production, and its because of her stance, and the way she asserted herself that Fatal Deception was produced as it is.* * *

Now back to the beginning of this post:  I started this post by noting that Paul Brancato had begun this thread on April 3 (2017) by asking a simple question: “Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?”

For reasons that I don’t completely understand—and  I have attempted to treat somewhat humorously in the opening paragraphs—Paul Trejo has jumped in, with his theories about Walker, the result being that this discussion has been steered way off track.  However, I will candidly admit that I, too, am concerned with Walker, but not because it has anything to do with the grassy knoll, killer teams, "the ground crew" and all of that, which I find to be largely irrelevant (in terms of the Walker facet of the JFK assassination).

My focus is on the events occurring on the night of April 10, 1963, and the role of the Walker affair in gaslighting Marina Oswald.

(To repeat:IMHO: It has nothing whatever to do with "who was on the grassy knoll" etc.)

In this post, I have tried—in highly synopsized fashion—to explain the methodology I have employed, and  my own view of Walker, in order to perhaps proceed further,  but also to pave the way for others to jump in, and to address the original question raised by Brancato: was the cover-up and the crime committed by the same people?   (Or. .. are we dealing with two separate functions? Two separate plans?)

In my post (on the first Web page) I expressed my view that the assassination was elegant in conception, but bungled in execution.

There’s little question in my mind that Oswald was ever supposed to leave the building alive.  (And if I’m correct on that point, there would have been no Tippit shooting, no theater arrest, no necessity to kill Oswald while in DPD custody, etc.)

But furthermore, and now going back to Walker, if this plot had unfolded as planned, and if Marina had not hidden then note Lee had written, I have little doubt that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, in addition to the fact that it would have been announced that “the assassin had been killed in the building,” and that “his rifle” had been “also found” on the sixth floor of the building, headlines would have been made by another story: it would have been announced that the Dallas Police investigation established that Lee Oswald was the  “unknown sniper” who had shot at General Walker, the previous April;  furthermore, and this would have commanded a major headline, that a note had been found at the Irving residence, where his Russian wife lived, which established without question that he was the person responsible for Walker’s shooting.

I may have more to say about this subject, as time permits; but here’s my only request: Please refrain from using this thread to disseminate  a seriously bloated and largely speculative version of a Walker hypothesis. 

As I said at the outset, anyone who does that is akin to someone delivering a thesis about some of the distant moons of Jupiter, when the question originally raised is a relatively simple one about what is known, traditionally, as the solar system.

DSL

4/10/2017 – 8:20 a.m. PDT

Edited and tweaked, 4/10/17, 9:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 11, 2017 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

When did the planned blame go from Castro to the Soviets? Who decided they would rather invade Russia than Cuba? I missed that part.

Ron,

I don't recall how Castro was implicated in the plot. But I do recall how the Russians were... the Mexico City evidence that Oswald was in communication with Soviet assassin Valery Kostikov. Also, Oswald's (probably fake) letter to the Russian embassy in the States, where he acted chummy with them and I think mentioned he'd talked to "Kostin" (Kostikov).

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Ah yes, the autopsy photos and X-rays. Let's see, they assassinated the president, they conducted a sham military-controlled autopsy as part of the cover-up, but they were careful not to tamper with any of the autopsy materials, such as altering or faking a photo or two, because THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

Ron,

I think Micah is a Pat Speer disciple, as far as the medical evidence is concerned. As I understand it, Speer believes that all twenty (or so) medical professionals at Parkland got confused and thought that the top of Kennedy's head was really the back of his head.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Sandy, I think that there is a bit of confusion. Ron is saying, I think, that in fact the number of shooters was greater than one. On the other hand, the cover story was that there was only one.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

Maybe so. I'm not sure because Ron quoted just one sentence from my post, and that sentence taken out of context means something different from what I wanted it to mean. I don't know whether his reply was to my intended meaning or the out-of-context meaning. Which is why I asked him to clarify.

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Way back when, on this thread, its originator (Paul Brancato, who started this thread, on April 3) made the polite request that he wished the thread could stay on topic.

He made this request after another poster (Paul Trejo( entered the thread, and –it seems to me, anyway—has been using it to promote a  (largely) unrelated thesis about Walker being responsible for the Kennedy assassination, and prominently mentioning---both at the beginning of his post, and again at the end—that (somehow) this is all related to the validity of my work, which contains a chapter noting that there was, or appears to have been, a “pre-autopsy autopsy” on the body of President Kennedy.

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

I started this post by noting that Paul Brancato had begun this thread on April 3 (2017) by asking a simple question: “Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?”

For reasons that I don’t completely understand—and  I have attempted to treat somewhat humorously in the opening paragraphs—Paul Trejo has jumped in, with his theories about Walker, the result being that this discussion has been steered way off track.  

 

DSL

4/10/2017 – 8:20 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thank you David for this helpful and informative post. Beyond informative and detailed information which it offers surrounding the the assassination, it represents the latest, most elegant and indeed humorous illustration of the incessant manner in which a particular forum member bloats so many threads with his particular theory.

I don't know if you saw the most recent, and now hidden or deleted, egregious example of that proclivity. A few weeks ago a death notice for a respected and beloved long-time member of the forum became a rostrum from which this member gave a Walker-Did-It sermon, sprinkled with a hint of fare-thee-well refrains.

I am convinced that he cannot help himself and indeed enjoys the attention even if it comes in the form of admonishment of his habit.

Thaks again, and

Cheers

Michael

Edited April 10, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Lifton]

54 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thank you David for this helpful and informative post. Beyond informative and detailed information whit it offers surrounding the the assassination; it represents the latest, most elegant and indeed humorous illustration of the incessant manner in which a particular forum member bloats so many threads with his particular theory.

I don't know if you if you saw the most recent, and now hidden or deleted, egregious example of that proclivity. A few weeks ago a death notice for a respected and beloved long-time member of the forum became a rostrum from which this member gave a Walker-Did-It sermon, sprinkled with a hint of fare-thee-well refrains.

I am convinced that he cannot help himself and indeed enjoys the attention even if it comes in the form of admonishment of his  habit.

Thaks again, and

Cheers

Michael

No, I didn't see that. But if I suddenly get hit by the proverbial bus, can you please attempt to see that he doesn't use the event of my passing as the device to deliver a further discourse on Walker.   Thanks.  DSL

[Ron Ecker]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ron,

Just to be clear, you are saying that there was no desire by the assassination conspirators to cover up the fact that there were multiple shooters. Is that right?

If so, then how do you explain the seeming fact that it was known very early on that Kennedy's body needed to be snatched and altered? Altered so that evidence of multiple shooter be covered up as well as possible.

 

Sandy,

All I know to do is repeat myself from earlier in this thread. Here's what I wrote:

"The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro. (Edit: Operation Northwoods Revised Edition.) Body alteration became necessary only when Oswald was taken alive instead of almost immediately eliminated (as one of Castro's shooters), and the decision was quickly made to blame it all on Oswald, who therefore, according to official history, is now famous for pulling off a ridiculously impossible feat."

Have I still not made myself clear? Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER. He wasn't supposed to get himself arrested (he was supposed to be promptly shot or taken out of Dallas, and then shot or whatever, but somebody got cold feet, slept late, or just screwed up) and ruin the scenario by which he was supposed to be identified (DEAD) as one of the shooters sent by Castro. Taken alive and declaring himself a patsy, he had to be declared a lone nut, to be shot by a nightclub owner who felt sorry for Jackie, while the Secret Service and military had to play Keystone Kops with JFK's body in order to butcher it and cover up evidence of the multiple shooters.

.

 

  

 

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Ron Ecker

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tippit, for some reason, got in the way. Either he was trying cover himself, cover someone else, trying to be a hero, or trying to extricate himself from the plot that he thought was closing in on him. He probably would have been fine if he didn't wander off-base.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

According to Jeff Caufield (2015) not only was JD Tippit a likely shooter at Dealey Plaza (along with Roscoe White) but JD Tippit was also tagged to kill Oswald in the streets.

Since that failed, the standard procedure of Dallas Police had to be followed, since many DPD cops descended onto the scene -- and they had no idea that the JFK assassination was really a Dallas Police plot.  So they hauled Oswald into jail -- according to SOP.

At that point the JFK Kill Team (including Sheriff Decker, Chief Curry and Captain Fritz) had to come up with a plan to kill LHO at the station.   It took them two solid days to come up with a workable plan -- it was lucky for them that Jack Ruby was so emotional.

Some among the JFK Kill Team still believed that they could sell the Communists-did-it CT.  (General Walker and James Hosty, among others, were still pushing it in 1964).  

Most others were feeling the LNer pressure from Waggoner Carr and Henry Wade.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

..."The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro. (Edit: Operation Northwoods Revised Edition.)

Body alteration became necessary only when Oswald was taken alive instead of almost immediately eliminated (as one of Castro's shooters), and the decision was quickly made to blame it all on Oswald, who therefore, according to official history, is now famous for pulling off a ridiculously impossible feat."

...Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER.

He wasn't supposed to get himself arrested (he was supposed to be promptly shot or taken out of Dallas, and then shot or whatever, but somebody got cold feet, slept late, or just screwed up) and ruin the scenario by which he was supposed to be identified (DEAD) as one of the shooters sent by Castro.

Taken alive and declaring himself a patsy, he had to be declared a lone nut, to be shot by a nightclub owner who felt sorry for Jackie, while the Secret Service and military had to play Keystone Kops with JFK's body in order to butcher it and cover up evidence of the multiple shooters.

Ron,

I agree substantially with what you have written here, with only minor nuances of difference.   Perhaps too little to matter, given the majority context of CTs in 2017.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Gerry Simone]

20 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

When did the planned blame go from Castro to the Soviets? Who decided they would rather invade Russia than Cuba? I missed that part.

 

Whether they blamed it on the Soviets or Cuba (or both), didn't matter.  Either was fine back then to the plotters.  The USA almost went to war with the Soviets during the CMC.  

IMHO of course Ron.

[Michael Clark]

....

Edited April 10, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

According to Jeff Caufield (2015) ......

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, In the above, where do Jeff Caufields claims begin and end; and which are YOUR claims? It is not clear.