Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

On 22nd November, 1963, an autopsy was carried out by Dr Joseph Humes on the body of John F. Kennedy. A few days after the assassination, a colleague, Dennis D. David, found William Bruce Pitzer working on a 16-mm film, slides and black and white photos of the Kennedy autopsy. David noted that those materials showed what appeared to be an entry wound in the right frontal area with a corresponding exit wound in the lower rear of the skull.

Jerrol F. Custer, an X-ray technician at the hospital, later stated that Pitzer had photographed the proceedings, including the military men who attended the Kennedy autopsy. It was also rumoured that Pitzer had copies of Kennedy's autopsy photographs.

According to Dr. Joseph Humes, Pitzer was not present at the autopsy. However, he admitted that the Bethesda Naval Hospital was equipped with closed-circuit television. This was the responsibility of Pitzer and over the years had used these facilities to make instructional movies. It is therefore possible that Pitzer had secretly made a 16-mm movie film of the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body, without being present in the autopsy room when it was carried out.

After 28 years in the US Navy Pitzer decided to retire. He told friends he had been offered a good job working for a network television station. It is believed that he intended to make a programme about the Kennedy assassination.

On 29th October 1966, Lieutenant Commander William B. Pitzer was found dead at the Naval Medical School, Bethesda. Investigations by the Naval Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation later concluded that a gunshot wound to the head had been self-inflicted.

FBI files on the investigation, released in 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that there was a strong possibility that Pitzer had been murdered. The paraffin tests of Pitzer’s right palm and back of hand were negative, indicating the absence of nitrate, therefore no exposure to gunpowder. FBI tests indicated "that the revolver must have been held at a distance of more than 3 ft when discharged".

Although there were links between Pitzer and the revolver found near the body, the FBI could find no record of Pitzer acquiring live ammunition. The autopsy showed both an entry and exit wound to the head. It also revealed a third wound that was not related to the gunshot to the head.

Pitzer had been busy writing notes to people in the time just before he was killed. However, he did not leave a suicide note. One of these notes was found on the floor near Pitzer's body. It bore a partial heel print that was not from the shoes Pitzer was wearing.

In May 1995, ex-Special Forces Colonel Daniel Marvin claimed to have been solicited by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency to "terminate" William Pitzer. An interview with Mavin later appeared in the sixth episode of the television series The Men Who Killed Kennedy (November, 1995).

However, some researchers have questioned Daniel Marvin's evidence. Does any other member have more information on this case?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello John:

Excellent post. You raise significant issues.

Jerrol F. Custer, an X-ray technician at the hospital, later stated that Pitzer had photographed the proceedings, including the military men who attended the Kennedy autopsy. It was also rumoured that Pitzer had copies of Kennedy's autopsy photographs.

I do not believe that Custer was credible. In an interview with Walt Brown, he said that Pitzer had taken the still photographs you refer to above. In a more recent interview with William Law, he stated that Pitzer was in the Bethesda Medical School autopsy room on the evening of November 22, 1963, with a movie camera. A small difference, but an important one. He also told Law that he knew Pitzer well, and that Pitzer could not have shot himself in the right temple because his right hand was congenitally deformed -- he could not have held the weapon. Pitzer had no such deformity.

After 28 years in the US Navy Pitzer decided to retire. He told friends he had been offered a good job working for a network television station. It is believed that he intended to make a programme about the Kennedy assassination.

I am aware of only one person to whom Pitzer said he'd been offered a job by a television company or companies: Dennis David. Dennis recently told me that Pitzer did not indicate any plan to accept such a job. According to the widow, his retirement plan was to take a job as a teacher at a local community college. I am unsure of the origin of the story that Pitzer planned to make public the JFK-autopsy movie film that he may have had in his possession. It seems highly unlikely that the consummate navy man would have exposed to ignominy the institution that he so loved and honored.

FBI files on the investigation, released in 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that there was a strong possibility that Pitzer had been murdered. The paraffin tests of Pitzer’s right palm and back of hand were negative, indicating the absence of nitrate, therefore no exposure to gunpowder. FBI tests indicated "that the revolver must have been held at a distance of more than 3 ft when discharged".

I have to accept responsibility for the spurious "absence of nitrate" aspect of the case. Paraffin casts were made by the autopsy doctors of both sides of LCDR Pitzer's right hand. When I read "paraffin casts" I assumed that they had been for nitrate tests. In fact, they probably were prepared with the expectation of nitrate tests. But, in fact, nitrate tests were not carried out. The paraffin casts were tested for metals commonly found in gunshot residue. Instead of swabs being taken directly from the skin, they were taken from the surface of the paraffin casts. The doctors who conducted the autopsy of Pitzer's body were not forensic pathologists. It is possible that they were not aware that the FBI no longer did dermal nitrate tests. The metal-analysis tests failed to confirm gunshot residue. I believe that the tests were flawed, particularly since the autopsy photographs (which I saw recently) indicate blackening of the right hand with soot. The "3-foot distance" result of the "white cloth" test by the FBI showed how far the revolver had to have been from the wound to preclude powder tattooing. However, the entry wound in the right temple had the characteristics of a close-contact shot, consistent with the absence of tattooing.

The autopsy showed both an entry and exit wound to the head. It also revealed a third wound that was not related to the gunshot to the head.

The third wound was in the left supraorbital plate, extending into the sphenoid bone. This defect may be explained in terms of pressurization of the cranium on discharge of the tight contact shot.

One of these notes was found on the floor near Pitzer's body. It bore a partial heel print that was not from the shoes Pitzer was wearing.

This may have a prosaic explanation. There was a great deal of blood spatter on the floor. After discovery of the body, someone could have inadvertently stepped on the piece of notepaper.

As for the veracity of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Marvin, his recent comments on video are most revealing:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Article-8.html

More info on the case in general is available at

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer.html

Thank you.

Allan Eaglesham

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Marvin is not a reliable witness. Does any other member have more information on this case?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm

WHAT?? What makes you say that? Are you making the same mistake as with Judyth Baker? Relying on third party hearsay?

----- Original Message -----

From: Wim Dankbaar

To: Daniel Marvin

Cc: John Simkin

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:45 PM

Subject: Hey Dan, your intervention is needed here!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=126

Quote: However, Marvin is not a reliable witness. Does any other member have more information on this case? Unquote

This is a new forum, which so far seems to be fair and objective. However the forum administrator Mr. John Simkin seems to have a habit of speaking before collecting all the facts or even talking to the main witnesses involved. But, I have to add, he has shown himself to be honorable and correct earlier errors.

So get on line there and say what you need to say.

Wim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wim:

It is time to stop the silly games. Are you pretending not to be aware of the documentary Kennedy's Assassination: 13th Version?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Article-8.html

You are showing yourself to be as untrustworthy as Dangerous Dan.

Allan

Silly games? Please explain!

Of course I am aware of 13th version. I assisted the producer to some extent.

Everyone I know that saw it, thought it was great by the way. Pity it only aired in Russia. If you refer to the sketches, there may be some inaccuracies, however I say you're nitpicking. I wish you would do that that for ABC's doc "Beyond conspiracy"

Untrustworthy? That's a hell of a statement, Allan. Backup?

Wim

PS: And please try to explain for once to me in your own and maybe clearer words, what it was exactly that made you turn your back on Dan Marvin. Your words on your website, to which you always refer when I ask this, are so fuzzy to me that I still don't understand. I think it is important for me, you and the rest that we DO understand since you call him a xxxx in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly games? Please explain!

Of course I am aware of 13th version. I assisted the producer to some extent.

Everyone I know that saw it, thought it was great by the way. Pity it only aired in Russia. If you refer to the sketches, there may be some inaccuracies, however I say you're nitpicking. I wish you would do that that for ABC's doc "Beyond conspiracy"

Untrustworthy? That's a hell of a statement, Allan. Backup?

Marvin shows himself to be untrustworthy in 13th Version. John Simkin knows it. You know it. It's a silly game on your part. The Pitzer component of 13th Version contains several inaccuracies. You know that. Your words "there may be some inaccuracies" -- yet another little word game -- shows that you are untrustworthy also.

Nitpicking? The justification for Pitzer having been murdered in 13th Version is that he was left-handed. In fact, he was right-handed. That isn't nitpicking -- that's fundamental. Another word game on your part.

And please try to explain for once to me in your own and maybe clearer words, what it was exactly that made you turn your back on Dan Marvin.

I didn't turn my back on him. That is nonsense, and another word game. He forced me to end my association with him -- after I had given him all possible benefit of the doubt -- by forcing me to conclude that he was being dishonest about some aspect of the CIA-contract-on-Pitzer story. It is sufficiently clearly described on my Web site. He later apologized and justified his "change of heart" on the basis of more lies.

You and Marvin deserve each other.

I am happy to address points raised with reference to the Pitzer case proper. This is my last word on Dan Marvin's "contributions."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DangerousDan

Forum Members,

At this moment I am involved in trying to help in any way that I can, to include offering to testify before Congress, the investigative press sort out the Iraq detainee torture situation. I believe it to be systemic as it has been for years - with those involved in other than a declared war or, within the confines of a declared war - but within the environment of covert/independent operations overseen by CIA attributes - being instructed (as I was and I would welcome others to come forward) to "set aside" any concerns for the Geneva Conventions or the International Law of Land Warfare so as to get the job done. In each specific situation the methodology to be excercised in actual torture and after/torture actions are devised to meet cultural/political and/or (believe it or not) personal likes or dislikes. My main concern, as I expressed to Seymour M. Hersh this morning and Anne Adams (producer of the Diana Rehm Show - who just this morning provided me the e-mail address for a PBR personality much interested in what can be told from personal experience), is that the actual on-the-ground perpterators of the immoral and indeed cruel acts against Islamic persons under their control would be the only ones punished. The very fact that cameras were used as part of the torture routine is an indicator of a sophisticated system developed by some higher ups and approved way up the chain of command that would "work" when interrogating those specific type of people.

I will attmept to get back to this forum regarding the accusations of Dr. Allan Eaglesham and the comments of others. Perhaps it would be beneficial to all cocerned to know that both Robin Palmer (who provided his home for the use of Nigel Turner in 1995 when "The Truth Shall Make You Free" segment of his "The Men Who Killed Kennedy series was filmed) and Dr Eaglesham, a man who I now believe to be on the side of or a part of the CIA dis-information program meant to scare off or thwart off in any way real strides for the truth in this matter, and who has gone from full support of the truth about the outright assassination of LCDR William Bruce Pitzer to the lie of a suicide. The real "expert" in this particular field is Kent Heiner, a man of truth who has taken on the enormous task of writing a book about the Pitzer death and a man who was not bashful about questioning every detail of everything that I provided him in the way of evidence or judgment regarding this very important matter. This coming November it is very likely that his book will be introduced in Dealy Plaza.

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Daniel Marvin

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't turn my back on him. That is nonsense, and another word game. He forced me to end my association with him -- after I had given him all possible benefit of the doubt -- by forcing me to conclude that he was being dishonest about some aspect of the CIA-contract-on-Pitzer story. It is sufficiently clearly described on my Web site. He later apologized and justified his "change of heart" on the basis of more lies.

You and Marvin deserve each other.

I am happy to address points raised with reference to the Pitzer case proper.  This is my last word on Dan Marvin's "contributions."

Ok , here's a point to "address proper", I will ignore your unproper addresses then.

How was Marvin "dishonest" about "some aspect" of the CIA-contract-on-Pitzer story? It may be sufficiently documented on your website, as you always say, but not for me then: What is the "some aspect" exactly? I ask to be SPECIFIC please. Name the aspect. Is it because he refused to call Vanek in your presence? Is that the aspect? And if so, please explain how that is a LIE?

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to post
Share on other sites

>Name the aspect. Is it because he refused to call Vanek in your presence? Is that the aspect? And if so, please explain how that is a LIE?<

Let me try this one more time, in words mostly of one syllable: I will not respond to your word games. If any subscriber to this forum wishes to discuss the Marvin aspect with me, I will respond to e-mails.

This thread is about the death of William Pitzer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DangerousDan

Dear Forum Members. It is obvious to the undersigned that Dr. Allan Eaglesham prefers to not answer any direct questions posed to him such as what Wim Dankbaar posed in his last posting. I can recall many similar unanswered queries to Dr. Eaglesham from me. For example I asked him to demand of Robin Palmer (once and ally in this honorable fight for the truth) whether he was telling the truth when he wrote to Ms Kathy Hovis, Reporter on the Ithaca Journal Staff on March 22, 1991 stating unequivocally, "I think you would want to hear what Jean McPheeters [senior staffer in Congressman Matthew McHugh's Ithaca, NY office] told me when I called her on October 2nd of last year. She accused Colonel Marvin of having fantasies about the CIA and she told me that 'someone could get hurt if Marvin pursued this matter'," or in more recent years when Dr. Eaglsham claims that Robin told him that there were no real threats. Interestingly enough Robin Palmer also wrote to Cornell University Provost M. C. Nesheim on January 18, 1992 (which Robin Palmer copied to me, Professor L. Pearce Williams - a mutual friend, Kethy Hovis, Lan Thanh Le and Le Van Phoi) telling him "This is a serious matter. It is about the scourge that is the shadow government in this country and it must be confronted by those who have the courage to do so. Congressman McHugh's lies and stonewalling should be of concern to you and all honorable Americans. I am also extremely concerned about the safety of former ARVN Green Beret Colonel Le Van Phoi, Marvin's counterpart in Vietnam and the only other living person (other than CIA personell and Dan Marvin) who is intimately familiar with the CIA's plot to kill [Cambodian Crown Prince] Sihanouk. It's not 'old hat' or 'old fears' that we are asking you to act on. I'll not forget my 19 October 1990 conversation with Jean McPheeters when she calmy told me that 'someone could get hurt if Marvn continues to pursue these matters' involving the CIA."

Since then Dr. Eaglesham has insisted in his postings on other JFK Assassination-related Forums that Robin Plamer has told him that there have been no "real threats" against me or fellow crusaders or my family. Robin Palmer refuses to talk to me or answer written queries and Dr. Eaglesham seems to want to let my question go unanswered. Does he fear telling the truth?

I find this "change of heart" or "change of truth" interesting. Is it possible, the same as has happened to many one-time loyal to the truth military associates of mine who have turned 180 degrees, even in written statements when intimidated or outright threatened by CIA or Military Intelligence personnel (specifically Lt Col Robert Bartelt, which I will prove before Congress by actual CID/MI investigation reports if I am ever allowed to testify) and now swear by the lie that defend the CIA and MI, has changed the tune of Robin Palmer and Dr. Eaglesham? Think about this: It was Robin Palmer who volunteered the use of his personal home by Nigel Turner to do the secret filming of my role in Part 6 (The Truth Shall Make You Free) of his "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series, understanding that Robin Palmer was already intimately familiar with everything that I would say during that filming. Could that fear have also eroded the very investigatory process that, at one time, I was so pleased that Dr. Eaglesham was involved in very heavily, to the extent he was defending the actual perpetrators of murder?

Perhaps Dr. Eaglesham will now answer this same question of mine on this different and I believe honorable series. I also believe it is very interesting that it has been British subjects Nigel Turner and William E. Pepper and Netherland's citizen Wim Dankbaar who have "taken on" the much feared CIA and their evil counterparts in other agencies of our government when MOST Americans fear to tread the waters of truth. Unless I am terribly mistaken, it now appears John Simkin will join the ranks of my real heroes with this British-based Forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Article-2.html

and scan down to the section titled "Dangerous Dan"

2. An e-mail from me to Kent Heiner, followed by his response:

> I will attmept to get back to this forum regarding the accusations of Dr. Allan Eaglesham and the comments of others. Perhaps it would be beneficial to all cocerned to know that both Robin Palmer (who provided his home for the use of Nigel Turner in 1995 when "The Truth Shall Make You Free" segment of his "The Men Who Killed Kennedy series was filmed) and Dr Eaglesham, a man who I now believe to be on the side of or a part of the CIA dis-information program meant to scare off or thwart off in any way real strides for the truth in this matter, and who has gone from full support of the truth about the outright assassination of LCDR William Bruce Pitzer to the lie of a suicide. The real "expert" in this particular field is Kent Heiner, a man of truth who has taken on the enormous task of writing a book about the Pitzer death and a man who was not bashful about questioning every detail of everything that I provided him in the way of evidence or judgment regarding this very important matter. This coming November it is very likely that his book will be introduced in Dealy Plaza.

>

> Kent:

>

> The above is from a new forum on JFK etc. No need to spell out its origin. If you have any comment to share with the subscribers, I give you my word that I will pass it along unchanged.

>

> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st=0entry4554

>

> Allan

Allan -

Feel free to share the following (and understand why I am referring to

you in third person):

I don't consider myself "the real expert" on the Pitzer case, though I

may be a contender. I think if any one person fits that title, it is

probably Allan Eaglesham. Furthermore, Allan has shown as much courage,

integrity, and diligence in uncovering the truth of this case as any

other person. Let us lay aside personal differences and let the facts

speak for themselves. This is what I have sought to do in my

forthcoming book, "Without Smoking Gun: Investigating the Death of LCDR

William B. Pitzer," to be released late this year by TrineDay.

Best wishes and regards,

Kent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum Daniel.

It seems that Allan Eaglesham originally believed that William Pitzer was murdered. However, recent evidence has resulted in him changing his mind about the case. See below:

Jerrol F. Custer, an X-ray technician at the hospital, later stated that Pitzer had photographed the proceedings, including the military men who attended the Kennedy autopsy. It was also rumoured that Pitzer had copies of Kennedy's autopsy photographs.

I do not believe that Custer was credible. In an interview with Walt Brown, he said that Pitzer had taken the still photographs you refer to above. In a more recent interview with William Law, he stated that Pitzer was in the Bethesda Medical School autopsy room on the evening of November 22, 1963, with a movie camera. A small difference, but an important one. He also told Law that he knew Pitzer well, and that Pitzer could not have shot himself in the right temple because his right hand was congenitally deformed -- he could not have held the weapon. Pitzer had no such deformity.

After 28 years in the US Navy Pitzer decided to retire. He told friends he had been offered a good job working for a network television station. It is believed that he intended to make a programme about the Kennedy assassination.

I am aware of only one person to whom Pitzer said he'd been offered a job by a television company or companies: Dennis David. Dennis recently told me that Pitzer did not indicate any plan to accept such a job. According to the widow, his retirement plan was to take a job as a teacher at a local community college.  I am unsure of the origin of the story that Pitzer planned to make public the JFK-autopsy movie film that he may have had in his possession. It seems highly unlikely that the consummate navy man would have exposed to ignominy the institution that he so loved and honored.

FBI files on the investigation, released in 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that there was a strong possibility that Pitzer had been murdered. The paraffin tests of Pitzer’s right palm and back of hand were negative, indicating the absence of nitrate, therefore no exposure to gunpowder. FBI tests indicated "that the revolver must have been held at a distance of more than 3 ft when discharged".

I have to accept responsibility for the spurious "absence of nitrate" aspect of the case. Paraffin casts were made by the autopsy doctors of both sides of LCDR Pitzer's right hand. When I read "paraffin casts" I assumed that they had been for nitrate tests. In fact, they probably were prepared with the expectation of nitrate tests. But, in fact, nitrate tests were not carried out. The paraffin casts were tested for metals commonly found in gunshot residue. Instead of swabs being taken directly from the skin, they were taken from the surface of the paraffin casts. The doctors who conducted the autopsy of Pitzer's body were not forensic pathologists. It is possible that they were not aware that the FBI no longer did dermal nitrate tests.  The metal-analysis tests failed to confirm gunshot residue. I believe that the tests were flawed, particularly since the autopsy photographs (which I saw recently) indicate blackening of the right hand with soot. The "3-foot distance" result of the "white cloth" test by the FBI showed how far the revolver had to have been from the wound to preclude powder tattooing. However, the entry wound in the right temple had the characteristics of a close-contact shot, consistent with the absence of tattooing.

The autopsy showed both an entry and exit wound to the head. It also revealed a third wound that was not related to the gunshot to the head.

The third wound was in the left supraorbital plate, extending into the sphenoid bone. This defect may be explained in terms of pressurization of the cranium on discharge of the tight contact shot.

One of these notes was found on the floor near Pitzer's body. It bore a partial heel print that was not from the shoes Pitzer was wearing.

This may have a prosaic explanation. There was a great deal of blood spatter on the floor. After discovery of the body, someone could have inadvertently stepped on the piece of notepaper. 

Do you think Allan is right to change his mind based on this evidence? Or do you think the evidence suggests he was murdered?

There also seems some doubts about whether Pitzer was left or right handed? Do you know the answer to this question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://users2.ev1.net/~bobdeb/jfk2/media.html

A friend's media page:

I consider Mr. Scott Myers both a good friend and a VERY good researcher:

On this page at the top, first item is this introduction:

" Dennis David's speech at the Lancer 2001 banquet

Thank you Dennis not only for making this speech but for allowing me to put in on my web site for others to hear. This speech is very inspiring and I urge everyone to listen. Dennis gave some important news regarding the search for the man who killed Lt. Cdr. Pitzer. This news is a followup to the story related by both Dennis and Dan Marvin in part six of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

In the following space you will find a link to a real player file of Mr. Dennis David's speech.

This link should take you to a page to select the Real Player free download for your particular Op. Sys. if you need real player.

http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk

I would also note for the consideration of all that Mr. Scott Myers offers this file completely free of charge unlike some "researchers."

I was able to download the file by right clicking the link and saving the target. To listen later or archive it to my own "stacks."

I would let each person listen and decide for themselves about the sincerity of Mr. Dennis David.

I know my own opinion is made up about the issue and those surrounding this issue.

This however does not mean my mind is closed, only that I find some things very convincing and the refutation of this or that position will have to be convincing and strong.

FWIW

Jim Hackett II

Oh and I also find Mr. Marvin's book "Expendible Elite" quite truthful for my own reasons which I will not go into here.

Edited by Jim Hackett II
Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Jim:

The source of greatest confusion in this case is the misconception that William Pitzer was left-handed. When Dennis David, a bridge partner of Pitzer’s, learned of his friend’s death of a gunshot wound to the right temple, he immediately doubted the official verdict of suicide because he had a strong memory of Pitzer dealing cards with his left hand. However, in a January 29, 1995, telephone call to Mrs. Pitzer, Dan Marvin asked, “Was he -- was Bill -- right-handed or left-handed?” To which she replied, “He was right-handed.” In response, Marvin said in confirmation, “Right-handed.”

I have confirmed that William Pitzer was right-handed with two other members of the family and a colleague, himself left-handed, who saw Pitzer sign his name on many occasions.

Author Harrison Livingstone has contributed to the confusion. In his book High Treason 2, he chose to give more weight to how William Pitzer dealt cards than to what he was told by Mrs. Pitzer. In HT2, Livingstone wrote, “Dennis David...states that Pitzer was left-handed,” whereas his earlier book High Treason (co-authored by Robert Groden) states, “His widow said...he was right-handed.”

William Pitzer was right-handed. Dennis David now admits that he was mistaken. He told me that his father did a parlor trick similar to that of Pitzer's: he dealt cards with his left hand, skimming them from the deck with his thumb. Furthermore, Dennis's father wasn't left-handed either.

Allan

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...