Blog

  • The Death of Tippit – Part 2

    The Death of Tippit – Part 2


    The Death of Tippit – Part 2 – The Timeline and Tapes

    By John Washburn

    Both Hill and Westbrook’s testimonies confuse the sequences and timelines of particular events. The discovery of the jacket behind Ballew is a particularly relevant marker, as are the various false alarms. Hill even put the jacket discovery in the wrong place.

    To help unpick the confusion, listed below are events from the 12:44 All Points Bulletin (APB) to the time officers announced they were outside the Texas Theater. 

    Times are taken from the DPD tapes, adjusted to real-time between 12:54 and 1:16 pm (where time was tampered slowly) and again after 1:16 where time was tampered fast.

    12:44          APB with description of suspect

    12:48          Hill “enroute” to TSBD, in car 207 arrives by 12:50 pm 

    12:53         Tippit says he’s at “Lansing 8th” 

    12:56         260 (Harkness) “Get us 508 (Barnes – Crime Lab) down to Texas School Book Depository”. Shells have been found.

    12:56         508 (Barnes) is en route to deal with the shells found and ‘crime scene’. 

    1:00           Unanswered call to Tippit

    1:04           “91 clear” Mentzel. (Per CE2645 at Luby’s) time 3 minutes difference)

    1:04           “78” Tippit. Appears twice on CD 280 transcript but disappears in subsequent transcripts. (1:07 DPD time 3 minutes difference)

    1:07           Mentzel is asked to do traffic call. Does not go to accident as offloads to Nolan. Is at Beckley and 10th per CE 2645, a Mobil gas station (1:11 DPD time 4 minutes difference)

    1:09           Tippit was shot, driving eastwards from direction of Beckley and 10th, the Mobil gas station.

    1:10           Bowley at the shooting scene arrived having left RL Thornton School Singing Hills at 12:55 pm with daughter (a 13–15-minute drive mainly on freeway). Waits for safety until making radio call (Bowley affidavit of 2 December 1963)

    1:10           Fugitive ran onto Jefferson (Lewis, Patterson, Russell, and Reynolds FBI interviews and Warren Commission testimony of Reynolds.) 

    1:11           Lewis called DPD. Russell arrived at murder scene. Said Police car arrived in 5 minutes

    1:11/1:12  Bowley call. (1:18/1:19 DPD time 7-8 minutes difference). Ambulance arrives exactly 1 minute after Bowley has given the location as, “What’s, what, 404 E10th” 15 seconds after he started his call.

    1:14           “Suspect running west on Jefferson”. (Lewis has phoned and Dispatch put the call out) (19:30 DPD time 5:30 minutes difference)

    1:14           “19 is en route” (DPD time 1:19-1:20)

    1:15           “19 will be en route shortly”

    1:16           “85 (RW Walker): “We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson, last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He’s a white male, about 30, 5’8”; black wavy hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks”. (DPD 1:22).

    1:16           Poe and then Owens arrive at 410 E10th. “105, we’ve arrived”. “19 is code 6”. (1: 22. DPD 6 minutes difference*). Westbrook and Alexander were with Owens.

    1:20           279 says “got jacket in parking lot of garage across from Dudley Hughes.”. (DPD 1:25 5 minutes difference*). Westbrook had found the jacket under a car.

    1:20           Hill says on patrol radio he’d already been at the scene and saw the ambulance pass in front when Hill was on his way. 

    1:21           Hill says at 12th Beckley with ‘a witness’. (DPD 1:26-1:27 5 minutes difference*)

    1:21           Owens is at Ballew “One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he’s in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?”
    DPD (DPD 1:26 5 minutes difference*) told Warren Commission a jacket had been thrown down. Russell for second FBI interview said he went back to that scene with a policeman.

    1:28           111 (Officer Pollard said suspect was seen running west in the alley between Jefferson and 10th) (DPD 1:32 4 minutes difference*)

    1:29           Owens. “We’re shaking down these old houses here in 400 Block E Jefferson.” (DPD 1:33 4 minutes difference*). Per WC testimony Owens stayed outside covering. Per WFAA-TV Dallas footage (Reiland the reporter – see later), Hill instigated that search, and then the search moved to the Marsalis Library) *

    1:29           Channel 2 221 (Patrolmen R. HAWKINS and E. R. BAGGETT) Can you give Captain WESTBROOK any information as to where he was shot?

    1:29           McDonald “Send squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check out this church basement” *.” (DPD 1:33 1:27 4 minutes difference*)

    1:30           CT Walker. “223, he’s in the library at Jefferson — east 500 block Marsalis and Jefferson” * (DPD 1:34 4 minutes difference). That is the time Hutson, Hawkins, and Baggett (see later) were at the Mobil gas station, 10th and Beckley.

    1:31           Owens. “We’re all at the library” (DPD 1:34 3 minutes difference)

    1:35           Westbrook (550) made a call “What officer have you got commanding this area over here where this officer was shot?” Then Owens and others return to 410 E 10th. There is then more WFAA-TV (Reiland) footage which showed Westbrook, Poe, Owens, and Croy examining a wallet at the scene. 

    1:40           Westbrook put out a call “and work to North Jefferson. We’ve got a witness that seen him go north. *

    1:41           Hill 550/2: The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38, rather than a pistol.

    1:42           Hill (550/2) put out a call on Channel 2. “A witness reports that he was last seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down”*

    1:42           Owens (19) asks where 80 (Davis is).

    1:44           Hill (550/2) put out a call on Channel 2. “No that’s not the right one.” The Abundant Life Temple was a false alarm.

    1:44           Stringer (551 put out a call on Channel 2. “The jacket the suspect was wearing over here on Jefferson bears a laundry tag with the letter B 9738. See if there is any way you can check this laundry tag.” Per Ewell that was at the curb of Crawford Street.

    1:45           Radio call that suspect seen entering Texas Theater.

    1:47           Hawkins (call sign 211) put out a call “there’s about five squads back here [rear of the Texas Theater] with me now”. 

    The asterisked events at 1:29,1:30,1:40 and 1:42 were all false alarms (covered later).

    II

    As set out in my Tippit Tapes article [https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-tapes-a-re-examination] time was tampered with before the shooting of Tippit with the effect of placing Bowley’s call at 1:11 pm as 1:18-1:19 pm. After 12:55 pm most time stamps are missing, and a few erroneous time stamps appear. Time was slowed down. The reason for that is that anyone leaving 1026 N Beckley at 1:04 pm on foot couldn’t have arrived to kill Tippit at 1:09 pm. 

    Researcher Dale Myers says he timed the tape and a stopwatch and put Bowley’s call as at 1:17 pm 41 seconds. However, it’s difficult to reconcile that exercise with the Minnesota Library version of the patrol radio tapes on YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-CXd9qdIQ&t=1551s]

    That tape starts at 12:15 pm and runs for 1 hour 1 minute with a minute of a stuck repeat just before Bowley’s call which was 3 ½ minutes before the end of the tape. Hence by simple arithmetic, with only an hour of calls, there could be no events on the tape that occurred after 1:15 pm. Bowley’s is 56 ½ minutes from the start, making it 1:11 pm. 

    The tape has a 7-minute discrepancy by 1:11 pm which gradually accumulates after 12:54 pm when time stamps begin to disappear systematically. A real interval of 17 minutes was stretched to 24 minutes. 

    With time having been sped up, the opposite effect can be observed after Bowley’s call. The consequences of that are apparent in at least two places. By the speeded-up tampered time, Owens appears to have arrived only 3 minutes after the start of Bowley’s call. But in real time it took 4-5 minutes. Owens appears, by DPD time, to have arrived at the library false alarm only one minute after he was “shaking down the houses” in 400 E Jefferson, and simultaneously to CT Walker calling the false alarm. But in real time the interval is 2 minutes.

    That can be explained as the tamperers needing to resynchronize with real-time at approximately 1:45 pm because of third-party verifiability of the time of events at the Texas Theater. Time speeds up, thus a real interval of 34 minutes is condensed to 27 minutes.

    The 3 December 1963 statement of Hutson correctly put the time of the 1:45 pm call saying a suspect had entered the Texas Theater as 1:45 pm. This is where real-time and DPD time resynchronized in the first transcript, Secret Service Copy CD-290.

    But on  December 5, 1963, Hill said that the radio message that a suspect was in the theater was 1:55 pm. McDonald said on December 2, 1963, that 2:00 pm was the time of entering the Texas Theater. C.T. Walker said on 2 December 1963 the 1:45 pm radio call was 2:00 pm.

    The date of those officers asserting these false timings is relevant. The first transcript appeared as Secret Service Copy CD-290 dated December 3, 1963. That version did have a 1:45 pm time stamp as the relevant time. But time stamps for 1:18, 1:40, and 1:45 present in CD 290 disappear in the 6 March and 11 August transcripts and from the tape. The 1:45 call sits midway between the 1:44 and 1:46 time stamps in these later versions.

    By that evidence, the tampering strategy was still fluid in the first week of December 1963. Therefore some officers, who presumably knew they had to add 10 minutes to time to give a false account for Tippit’s time of death, carried on adding 10 minutes to the time of events at the Texas Theater not knowing that time would end up not tampered! 

    Only Hutson didn’t lie on time and as set out later Hutson was only in on Oswald’s arrest by chance. Was Hutson a reason why Oswald left the Texas Theater alive?

    OWENS’ VS EWELL’S ACCOUNT VS WESTBROOK’S

    Back to the discrepancies in how people arrived at the Tippit murder scene.

    Ewell said:- “I left the location at the School Book Depository and jumped into a car driven by Captain Westbrook with Sergeant Stringer. I rode in the back seat as we sped across into Oak Cliff by taking the Houston Street Viaduct right beside the Dallas News.

    When we arrived in Oak Cliff, I got a chance to go into a convenience store, McCandles’ Minute Market it was called in those days, just down from the Marsailles [sic] Public Library, and I did get to make a phone call to the city desk asking them to send me a photographer. They didn’t know what I was doing in Oak Cliff. This particular editor was too overpowered by what was going on downtown to pay any attention to what I was trying to tell him, and I know I came out saying, “You know I’ve got to have a photographer out here!”

    As I stepped out of this convenience store, next door to it was a two-story boarding house, and there I saw Bill Alexander with an automatic pistol stalking across the balcony very carefully. Alexander always impressed me because, being an assistant district attorney, he was one of those guys from the prosecutor’s office that you saw with the cops. He was a squad car prosecutor. You very seldom saw the district attorney outside of his office.

    From there we proceeded to a side street down from where they said J.D. Tippit had been shot not far from East Jefferson. There was another police car there as they were examining a jacket next to the curb which had apparently been located by one of the policemen after Oswald had thrown it down as he ran toward Jefferson. I had a jacket just like it. I remember it as being a light tan windbreaker. I was with Westbrook as we all went over to examine the jacket because it was the only tangible thing we had at the moment that belonged to the killer. In fact, I held the jacket in my hands. I remember that they were talking about a water mark on it that was obviously made by a dry cleaning shop.

    They were discussing it when the report came in that the person they thought might be the police officer’s assailant had gone into the Texas Theatre. Now we were on East Jefferson, so I’m thinking that we were about five blocks from that location. Immediately, Captain Westbrook and Sergeant Stringer ran back to their car, which was across the street, and I ran to jump in the backseat. By that time, they were already turning out and accelerating. When I got in the backseat with the door still hanging open, I came out of the car hanging onto the door. They slowed down long enough for me to get back in, as I could have been flung out against the gravel into a curb if I hadn’t held on.

    Anyway, when we arrived at the Texas Theatre, we parked right in front and everybody jumped out and went into the lobby. There were other police cars getting there, too. I was very familiar with the Texas Theatre, having lived close by back when we were a younger married couple. At that time, they had some kind of stairway up to the balcony, and I remember somebody kept shouting, “Turn on the house lights! Will somebody please turn on the house lights?”

    At 1:44 pm there was this call on Channel 2, which corroborates what Ewell said, which is particularly relevant to time. 

    551 (Sergeant H.H. Stringer)         “The jacket the suspect was wearing over here on Jefferson bears a laundry tag with the letter B 9738. See if there is any way you can check this laundry tag.”

    The place Ewell describes his arrival, “McCandles Minute Market”, and where he made a phone call can be deduced. It was adjacent to the building Alexander was investigating, a “furniture store”. 409 E Jefferson was described in the 1961 Dallas Directory as “One Stop Drive in Grocery” (later to become Dean’s Dairy Way). Next to that, westwards, was 401 E Jefferson, the Texaco garage. Next to it eastwards 413 ½ an apartment building, and then 417 S&J Used Furniture Exchange. 

    Ewell’s account is consistent with patrol radio and also WFAA-TV reporter Ron Reiland. Reiland in the TV film described Sgt. Hill as instigating the search of what Reiland called “antique shops”. Reiland says:-. 

    “Another man, Officer Hill, and several others ran into the front of the building with drawn pistols. I ran around the back of the building with my camera in hopes that if they flushed this man that we were looking for, he would come out the back door right into the face of the camera.”

    This is from the WFAA-TV broadcast, “A Year Ago Today”, November 22, 1964, at 36.20 minutes. [https://youtu.be/DBOvB5RKDOo?si=TYNIGZLvlzZb0DJa]

    Ewell describes the examination of the jacket on the curb, which would be Crawford Street. Ewell was not describing the discovery of the jacket as that occurred in the parking lot near the alley before 1:21 pm.

    Ewell’s description of events around the time of his arrival – which he said was with Westbrook driving – places it no earlier than the events around 1:30 pm (real-time). Whereas Owens said he arrived in Oak Cliff with Westbrook and that time was 1:16 pm. 

    Owens and Ewell could both have been telling the truth if Westbrook had done the journey twice in quick succession. The first journey was exactly as Owens said, and arriving at 1:16 pm in Owens’ car. The second journey was exactly as Jim Ewell said, and for that second journey, Westbrook had acquired the unmarked car that Ewell said Westbrook later drove to the front of the Texas Theatre. 

    A need, and the means, for Westbrook to go back to the Depository would be car 207. The car would have to be removed from Oak Cliff, or else it would stick out like a sore thumb. I therefore posit that Westbrook very shortly after arriving with Owens rendezvoused with car 207 (Hill) somewhere near the alley west of Crawford and took car 207 back to the Depository. 

    If Westbrook revealed how he’d arrived twice it would destroy the alibi for car 207. That explains why in his evidence he would conflate the two journeys into one. Thus turning Owens into an unknown officer, leaving out Ewell and Alexander, but adding Stringer. 

    By doing that, Westbrook would also have to lie about his method of arriving at the Texas Theater. He couldn’t admit – which was Ewell’s account – that he’d driven the unmarked car parked at the front. That would undermine everything, including his dubious story of walking from City Hall. 

    WESTBROOK – THE ALLEY AND THE JACKET

    In the extract of his testimony above Westbrook omitted his activities during the 14 minutes after he had arrived with Owens (1:16 pm). Westbrook first tried to mention only the library debacle (1:30 pm). Counsel Ball was aware of that omission, so he asked a question he knew the answer to.

    Mr. BALL. So, what did you do after that?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. I went back to the city hall and resumed my desk.

    Mr. BALL. Did you ever find some clothing?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. That was before, Mr. Ball.

    Mr. BALL. When was that?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn’t find it-it was pointed out to me by either some officer that-that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned. Someone pointed out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the other to take the license number.

    Mr. BALL. When did this happen? You gave me a sort of a resume of what you had done. But you omitted this incident.

    Mr. WESTBROOK. I tell you what-this occurred shortly-let me think just a minute. We had been to the library and there is a little bit more conversation on the radio-I got on the radio and I asked the dispatcher about along this time, and I think this was after the library situation, if there had been a command post set up and who was in charge at the scene, and he, told me Sergeant Owens, and about that time we saw Sergeant Owens pass. 

    Mr. BALL. What do you mean by “command post”?

    Westbrook was struggling. Why? Because the call announcing that the jacket of the fugitive was found in the parking lot of Ballew Texaco Service Station, 401 E Jefferson, was ten minutes earlier than the library incident – at approximately 1:20 pm. (Call sign 279 being Officer Mackie or Griffin.) 

    279   We believe we’ve got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

    DIS:   10-4. You do not have the suspect. Is that correct?

    279: No, just the jacket, laying on the ground. 

    DIS:   10-4.

    Having been caught out Westbrook then said:

    Mr. BALL. Was that before you went to the scene of the Tippit shooting?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir; that was before we went to that scene.

    Mr. BALL. That was after you left the library?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. After we left the library. I got out of the car and walked through the parking lot.

    Mr. BALL. What parking lot?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. I don’t know-it may have been a used-car lot.

    Mr. BALL. On what street?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. It was actually on Jefferson, but the place where this jacket was found would have been back closer to the alley, Mr. Ball.

    Mr. BALL. The alley of what?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. Between Jefferson and whatever the next street is over there.

    Mr. BALL. Tenth Street is the street north.

    Mr. WESTBROOK. What street?

    Mr. BALL. You see, the street directly north of Jefferson is 10th Street.

    Mr. WESTBROOK. It would be between Jefferson and 10th Street?

    Mr. BALL. And where with reference to Patton?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. Well, it would be toward town,

    Westbrook was obfuscating and changing the subject and there is a sense of exasperation in the tone of Ball. Westbrook couldn’t have gone to the parking lot to find the jacket after the library incident, as the jacket had been found before. What occurred after the library incident was it being discussed on Crawford Street. 

    But making matters worse for him he: did find the jacket. An FBI report of 3 December 1963 states:

    “Captain Doughty stated that this jacket was found by Captain Westbrook of the Dallas Police Department in an open parking lot west of Patton Street between 10th and Jefferson Streets, Dallas, Texas.”

    [https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=209&search=%22doughty%22_and%20%22westbrook%22]

    Washburn P2 1 policerecord
    The police record of the jacket was filed by Westbrook at 3 pm on the 22nd. Note it has Westbrook’s name at the top. [https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339366/m1/1/]

    But the same document submitted to the Warren Commission has Westbrook’s name obscured by a tilted strip attached over his name, in a way no other documents are.  (Vol XXIV CE2003, p117.) [https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2003.pdf]Washburn P2 2 policerecord

    If one looks carefully, only the words at the top “SUBMITTED TOO”, survived for the Warren Commission. The words “DPD Personnel Office” have not survived, despite being darker ink strikes in the original DPD version of the document. Those words cannot have been obscured accidentally, merely by a strip placed over those words at that angle. Nor by a parallel strip, as the words “OFFICER” and “OF” would also have survived. 

    The words on the strip that say it was released from “our” – DPD – Crime Lab on 28 November 1963 are superfluous. Both versions lower down state that the evidence was released to Vince Drain of the FBI on 28 November 1963.

    III

    For the HSCA in 1978, Westbrook admitted to finding the jacket. He said: “[he] was behind this location [Ballew] with Stringer when they found the jacket under the parked car across the alley from the rear of the church. Doesn’t recall disposition of the jacket.”

    So, by this, Westbrook found the jacket in the parking lot. Before the radio call at 1:20 pm, announcing it had been found. If Westbrook for the HSCA was correct, then how did Stringer arrive? Was he the other person in car 207 with Hill that tooted outside 1026 N Beckley?

    When Westbrook was interviewed by author Larry Sneed in 1988 he’d again forgotten Stringer’s name. But he placed himself finding the jacket having been in the alley. 

    “…I started walking up the alley, and I can’t even remember who the officers were at the time, one officer, whether he was with me or whether he was coming the other way, I can’t recall; but he said, ‘Look! There’s a jacket under the car.’ I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there if I remember right. So, I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket, and this eventually turned out to be Oswald’s jacket.”

    To summarise. Westbrook, who had arrived at the scene with Owens, has a hole in his story, concerning his whereabouts from 12:45 pm to 1:11 pm and then again after 1:16 pm to at least 1:30 pm. He tried to not mention the jacket to Ball and is defensive when it is brought up. He oscillates between the finding of the jacket just before 1:21 pm, with the discussion of the jacket at 1:44 pm. That is consistent with his conflating his two arrivals.

    All references on patrol radio Channel 1 describing the fugitive who ran down Patton and then E Jefferson including the finding of the jacket at 1:21 pm say it was white and that the fugitive had a white shirt. There was no mention of tan, gray, or any other color. But the jacket Westbrook submitted as evidence with the cleaning tag was gray. Jacket-less Oswald himself was wearing a brown shirt when arrested.

    If Westbrook falsified the jacket submission in his submission of 3:00 pm on November 22, 1963, it would follow he may have falsified other evidence submitted at the same time. The question, therefore, arises whether Westbrook did find a jacket before 1:20 pm because he’d rendezvoused with car 207 and essentially planted it to then announce finding it. A corollary then arises: whether by the time he’d left Oak Cliff and then come back, he had a reason to switch the jacket. (A reason for there being two jackets is offered later.) 

    A map is useful to place the alley into perspective, as it’s the same alley where Doris Holan saw a police car shortly before Tippit was shot.

    Reference the FBI photograph below. (Note: because the photograph was taken from the north looking south, normal east-west and north-south directions are reversed.) 

     

    That alley (shown in the diagram below as a yellow line, my addition) is the same alley that runs behind 410 E 10th, then crosses Patton, to run behind Ballew Texaco. The red dot in the diagram below (again my addition) is the apartment block from where Doris Holan saw a police car with two policemen in it around the time Tippit was killed. The dotted element of the yellow line represents the 50 yards from the rear of 410 E 10th to where the jacket was found.

     

    The FBI produced the photograph and captions. The fugitive was last seen by people at Ballew Texaco running into the alley. The FBI drew the route for the fugitive (black dotted line) avoiding the alley and then running along Jefferson. But the jacket was found in the rear parking lot of Ballew Texaco Service Station, near the alley. 

     

    Officer Griffin said on the radio “They say he’s running west in the alley between Jefferson and Tenth”.

     

    There is also a false assumption regarding the FBI’s black dotted line for Tippit’s route. Given that he left Top Ten Records via Bishop and Sunset, the route to arrive would be along E 10th from Beckley, not coming down from Crawford Street. 

     

    Given that per the Commission transcripts, Tippit’s last location was “Lancaster and 8th” at 12:54 pm and the (falsified) time of his shooting at 1:16 pm, there could be no basis to know what he was doing in the intervening 22 minutes to deduce a route to E10th via Crawford. 

    Washburn P2 3 map

    WESTBROOK AND THE WALLET

    Westbrook omitted another incident from his testimony. At approximately 1:35 pm, WFAA-TV Dallas filmed police officers looking at a wallet Owens was holding. The news coverage referred to it as Oswald’s wallet.

    FBI agent Bob Barrett asked him, ‘Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald is?’ And, ‘Do you know who Alek Hidell is?’

    Barrett confirmed that in this video interview of 22 February 2011. [https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/33007] At 34 minutes in, Barrett describes driving to the Tippit murder scene in his own car and seeing Westbrook with the wallet in his hand. 

    FBI Agent Hosty said: “Westbrook called Barrett over and showed him the wallet and [the] identifications…Westbrook took the wallet into his custody [and] Barrett told me [Hosty] that if I had been at the scene with Westbrook, I would have immediately known who Oswald was.”

    There is no reference to any wallet on the radio tapes, the Warren Commission Report, papers, or police records. It does not feature in the evidence in CE 2003 that was filed by Westbrook at 3:00 pm on 22 November 1963. 

    The account that Westbrook found the wallet is consistent with the radio call from Westbrook at 1:35 pm asking where Owens is, Owens then returning to the murder scene from the library to deal with it, and then Westbrook – inconveniently – being filmed. 

    Westbrook discovering the wallet that no other bystander or officer had found in the previous 26 minutes after Tippit was shot is suggestive of more evidence planting. And in this case then losing it before 3:00 pm, as it does not appear in the report that recorded the finding of the jacket filed at 3:00 pm. The official account was that the link with Oswald and 1026 N Beckley as an address was not made until after 3:00 pm when police and sheriffs arrived at the Paine residence in Irving. 

    But Earlene Roberts said the police arrived looking for Oswald at 1026 N Beckley shortly after 1:30 pm (Affidavit of Earlene Roberts, 5 December 1963 https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf). She had been joined by Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, who timed their arrival 10 minutes after hearing Kennedy was dead from the radio as they were sitting in their car. CBS Radio put its announcement out at 1:22 pm, faster than Walter Cronkite on US network TV at 1:38 pm.

    Not only did the Johnsons put the police there just after 1:30 pm, but Mr Johnson said it was for the murder of Tippit. 

    Mr. BELIN, All right. In any case, this man, O. H. Lee, came to rent a room from you or from your wife?

    Mr. Johnson. Yes.

    Mr. BELIN. Could you describe how you came to find out that this man had another name other than O. H. Lee?

    Mr. Johnson. Well, it was when the officers came looking for him.

    Mr. BELIN. When was this?

    Mr. Johnson. Uh-after Tippit was shot, the police_____

    Mr. BELIN. This would have been on November 22, 1963.

    Mr. Johnson. Yes.

    Mr. BELIN. And can you state what happened?

    Mr. Johnson. Well, they just came down there looking for-uh-Oswald.

    Mr BELIN. Did they say what his full name was?

    Mr. Johnson. Yes I believe they did.

    Mr Belin. Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Mr Johnson. I believe they did.

    The Warren Commission files have a note of 8 March from Norman Redlich which says 

    it would appear that the lead to 1026 N. Beckley would have had to come from some source other than the Paines.

    [https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/6/4606/7460606/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/johnson_a_c_mr/johnson_a_c_mr.pdf]

    Note how Counsel Belin doesn’t press on Redlich’s point. Instead, Belin changed the subject after Johnson’s reference to “after Tippit was shot the police ___” by the inane interruption as to whether this was 22 November. The effect of what Belin did was to change the question from the time to the irrelevant matter of the date.

    Westbrook planting “Oswald’s” wallet at the Tippit murder scene after 1:30 pm could have caused detectives to go to 1026 N. Beckley shortly after that. But the wallet by 3 pm was ‘forgotten’. Oswald had a wallet on him on his arrest and two wallets point to a frame-up.

    A CONJURING TRICK?

    A plan to kill Oswald inside the Texas Theater may have failed for a simple reason. Too many decent officers moved into Oak Cliff as a result of their rational response to the murder of a colleague. Some of those reached the Texas Theater, including Officer Hutson (covered later). Hutson was in physical contact with Oswald for the arrest.

    A reason for two jackets – and Oswald was not wearing a jacket on arrest – can be explained by linking with the ill thought through planting of the wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Oswald was not wearing a jacket on arrest. Whoever left 1026 N Beckley had put on a jacket. It would be a logical part of a frame-up to need to have a second jacket for Oswald. That jacket would merely need to be said to have been “found” under the seat; as if Oswald had taken it off in the cinema–with the wallet in it. A frame-up would be complete by taking a dead Oswald’s own wallet from his pants pockets.

    If the function of a second jacket was to perpetrate that stunt, then that particular jacket wouldn’t need to be submitted as evidence, nor be identical, given the darkened cinema. The logical one to present as evidence would be the one that the decoy had been wearing in broad daylight. Once he was secure that jacket could have been switched. The wallet with ID in it would in any case be the immediate point of focus. 

    It would have helped the narrative if the decoy entering the theater had a jacket on because the evidence indicates that Oswald himself on entry didn’t. It would connect Oswald to what the decoy was wearing.

    But the unplanned murder of Tippit caused an ill-thought-through mistake, The decoy wouldn’t be expected to ditch a jacket as the decoy wasn’t intended to participate in a tableau to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit. That scenario can explain why Westbrook planted the wallet on his second return and later changed the jacket as well as that jacket. It is therefore posited that the muddle over wallets and jackets was a result of improvisation messing up the intended conjuring trick.

    Given Westbrook first arrived by car with Owens, he couldn’t have carried the spare jacket – with the wallet inside –with him. It would be an obvious plant. But by approximately 1:30 pm Westbrook had acquired the spare jacket and the wallet. 

    HILL AT 12th AND BECKLEY

    There is a further issue. At 1:21 pm under call sign 550/2 and attributed to Hill is:

    I’m at Twelfth and Beckley now. Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets him.

     

    Twelfth and Beckley is 0.6 miles away from the Tippit murder scene, and 0.4 miles from Ballew. There is no further reference on the radio to this witness. 

    Hill testified regarding his response to what Owens said on the radio at 1:21 pm:

    At this time, about the time this broadcast came out, I went around and met Owens. I whipped around the block. I went down to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred, and made a right turn, and traveled one block, and came back up on Jefferson.

    That is describing Hill moving around the sides of the blocks that contained Ballew. But if Hill was meeting Owens at Ballew at 1:21 pm, he couldn’t be at 12th and Beckley at the same time. 12th and Beckley is not close to where the witness and action was at Ballew Texaco, as it was a total of 6 blocks away. 

    If Hill had indeed found a witness to the fugitive on the run he would not have made the mistake of mixing up Dudley Hughes’s parking lot with that of Ballew. Hill avoided any mention of 12th and Beckley in his Warren Commission testimony. That leads to an indication that Hill, by, 1:21 pm, was at 12th and Beckley, and was lying to cover that up. 12th and Beckley is closer to where Mentzel put himself (see later).

    A cop lying persistently in a way that was inconsistent with other honest officers must have been both comfortable being blatant and able to bat off any officer challenging him. Did Hill intimidate officers?

    A researcher and Warren Commission advocate Dale Myers – rather than identifying Hill’s pattern of inconsistencies – has tried to explain that 12th and Beckley call as Hill carrying Harold Russell. [https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/page/4/]

    Russell worked at Warren Reynolds’ garage which was near the Tippit murder scene where Jefferson is crossed by Patton. Russell was a witness to the fugitive on the run. Russell did not refer to being in a police car in his first FBI statement of 21 January 1964. Myers instead relies on Russell’s FBI interview of 23 February 1964. Russell did then refer to being in a police car. 

    However, that doesn’t help the case to account for that call of Hill. Russell had run to the scene of the shooting of Tippit and said that he went in a police car from the Tippit murder scene to the location where Russell had last seen the assailant – which was Ballew at 401 E Jefferson – with officers, plural.

    He stated the officers, whose names he did not know, put him in a patrol car and had him point to the area where he had last seen the man with the pistol. RUSSELL stated at this point he left the officers and then went in a nearby drug store and then went about his business and thought no more about it.

     

    [https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/russell_harold/russell_harold.pdf])

     

    Per the 1961 Dallas City Directory, the nearest drugstore was Skillern’s and Sons, 325 E Jefferson at the junction with Crawford, 10 yards from Ballew. The person to take Russell was Owens. Owens in this call at 1:21 pm was at Ballew, within 5 minutes of arriving at the Tippit murder scene.

    One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he’s in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?

    That is not evidence of Hill taking Russell to 12th and Beckley and being there at 1:21 pm. The said researcher also made a song and dance as to how witnesses at Ballew could have known a police officer had been shot by the fugitive, and also made a mystery of who had made the call to police regarding the fugitive. But the answer appears in the same FBI files that the researcher used to vindicate Hill. 

    Reynolds’ employee LJ Lewis made the call. [https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/russell_harold/russell_harold.pdf]

    While Warren Reynolds ran to Ballew, Russell ran to the murder scene. Owens then took Russell to Ballew arriving by 1:21 pm.  By which time a jacket was found. There’s no mystery in that. The mystery is why Hill was at 12th and Beckley at 1:21 pm and why Hill was dissembling. 

    Another red flag is that Lewis was asked to change his story by a letter from the Commission on 21 August 1964. [www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_PattersonBM_Ex_B.pdf]

    The outcome of the revised affidavit is that Lewis was supposed to have made the call to the police before he saw the fugitive, i.e. merely in response to hearing the shots. But the revision actually makes matters worse. For Lewis to have seen the fugitive after making the labored call, due to the confusion at DPD HQ, the fugitive would have had to linger whilst Lewis made his call.

    Of all the things the Warren Commission could have followed up on 21 August 1964 it is very odd it had to be this. And rather than dealing with a ‘discrepancy’ where none existed, it created one. 

    FOG AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION

    Hagiographical accounts of a tainted police force tend to miss the bigger picture. Indeed, Warren Commission apologists go to great lengths to suggest that Earlene Roberts got the number of the police car ‘207’ wrong. But for her to choose three digits at random which not only matched a DPD police car in service that day but matched the car used by the prevaricator Hill–and given an alibi by the persistently dubious Westbrook–would be statistically improbable. 

    The question arises whether Hill and others ever influenced or intimidated witnesses and researchers who might have challenged the circumstances of the Tippit shooting. Someone intimidated, Acquilla Clemons, an important witness to the Tippit murder. And she said they were police.

    What is also relevant is that all four witnesses at Reynolds Motors were intimidated. They were Reynolds, Lewis, Patterson, and Russell. 

    Warren Reynolds himself was shot in the head on 23 January 1963 and survived. He had told the FBI on 21 January 1964 that he could not identify Oswald as the fugitive. He told the FBI on 3 March 1963 that General Walker had asked to see him, He did not oblige then, but then did see Walker on 8 July 1963. He then appeared before the Warren Commission on 22 July 1963 and said he now did recognize Oswald.

    Why would General Walker be involved in such matters? Unless of course, he had an interest in keeping the lid on things. 

    General Edwin Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. He was a far-right segregationist whom Robert Kennedy had committed to a mental institution. Walker was arrested for promoting a race riot at Ole Miss. riots at University of Mississippi. This was after the admission of a black student into the all-white university. Walker claimed that every US President since 1933 had been a communist. Walker had failed to secure the Democratic nomination to be Governor of Texas to John Connally. Such was the then Southern Democratic Party.

    Harold Russell’s FBI statement of 23 February 1964 also addresses intimidation directly. (Note. He wrongly assumed that being shot in the head meant being dead). 

     

    RUSSELL stated about one month ago WARREN REYNOLDS, brother of the lot owner, was found shot to death at the car lot. RUSSELL stated after that he began to get worried about what he had seen, because WARREN REYNOLDS had also seen what he had seen the day of the President’s’ death and had gone in the direction where the man with the pistol had gone. When he had disappeared on Jefferson Street and had followed the man with the pistol down the street. RUSSELL stated last Monday JOHNNY REYNOLDS fired him and told him he was firing him because “he did not want to find him shot on the lot like WARREN REYNOLDS “. RUSSELL stated he did not question REYNOLDS and left the lot, but since then has worried that someone is out to shoot him like REYNOLDS because of what he saw. RUSSELL stated he had not received any threats of any kind and did not know if his life was in danger, but was worried about it because of what he saw.”

    It is also interesting the reference by Reynolds to “what he saw” rather than merely a matter of identification, which would be “who he saw”. Did Reynolds in looking up the alley, or Russell, see a police car in the alley? There were other witnesses who failed to identify Oswald. Was there something else about what Reynolds saw, that Russell also knew?

    What Reynolds, LJ Lewis, Pat Patterson, and Russell saw was clearly a problem. One was shot, one thought he would be too and moved out of Dallas, and the other two had to make late adjustments to their prior testimony. Patterson on 25thAugust had to say he recognised Oswald when he previously hadn’t. [www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_PattersonBM_Ex_B.pdf]

    From August 1964 the Commission had ceased to be an investigation of the facts and was seeking to twist facts and plug gaps to make things fit the narrative of their conclusions. Something now known to have been written into its unpublished terms of reference.

    There was other substantial witness intimidation besides at the car lot. As we have seen Aquila Clemons, who saw the shooting of Tippit, said two men were involved. They ran off in different directions and neither was Oswald. She was visited afterward by a policeman who told her to shut up. Domingo Benavides—another witness to the Tippit killing had a brother who was shot dead in a bar in Dallas in 1964. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 37) Benavides put that down to mistaken identification of himself. 

    As John Kelin notes in his last essay ad Kennedys and King, Helen Markham was another witness who was intimidated. Markham said she put her hands over her eyes on witnessing Tippit being shot. By chance, she also worked at Eat Well Café right by the Carousel Club and Larry Crafard ate there every day.

    Assistant Counsel Liebeler flagged the problem with Markham in this way:

    I forgot to mention that some question might be raised when the public discovers that there was only one eyewitness to the Tippit killing, that is, one person who saw Oswald kill him. All the rest only saw subsequent events. Mrs.Markham is nicely buried there, but I predict not for long. [https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/pdf/HSCA_Vol11_WC_3E2_Liebeler.pdf]

     

    But what Liebeler didn’t deal with is the fact that Helen Markham told Officers Poe and Jez on their arrival at the scene that “When she went to the aid of the officer the suspect had threatened to kill her.” Officers Poe and Jez filed a report on 22 November to that effect. [http://www.cultor.org/Documents/JFK-Dallas/Box%201/0090-001.gif]

    LET US CONJECTURE

    There has to be a reason why Westbrook and Croy prevaricated. The benefit to Westbrook of the improbable claim that he had walked may be that some officers had seen him on the street along a part of Elm, at a time later than his arrival at the Depository by car with Stringer. That later time thus connected to Westbrook and Croy getting the decoy off the Marsalis bus, with Westbrook then returning to the Depository and Croy headed to 1026 N Beckley.

    Mary Bledsoe (who lived on Marsalis, hence would get a Marsalis bus) said because of the delay to her bus she caught a bus that was behind. On the basis that drivers were disciplined if their buses ran early, then the second Marsalis bus she caught couldn’t have been running early. By that, the McWatters bus was late enough to fall behind the schedule of the next bus. 

    With at least a 10-minute interval between buses, then the hold-up at the time and point “Oswald” got off was not less than 10 minutes. But the lady got to Union Station before 1:00 pm. That places disembarkation somewhere between 12:50 pm and 12:55 pm, later than the Warren Commission timeline. That gives a timescale that would fit with alternative arrangements for moving the decoy being triggered at approximately 12:46 pm. 

    It would be logical that if there was an impromptu operation to take the decoy off the bus, and car 207 was not used for that, then another car would have dropped the decoy off. Croy’s car.

    All of that sits Westbrook arriving at the Depository by or before 12:57 pm having dealt with getting the decoy off the bus who was then taken away by Croy. That timeline would have given Westbrook from 12:57 pm to 1:11 pm time to consider his next steps whilst he was at the Depository. 

    By that Hill can have been given verbal command – presumably by Westbrook – at the Depository. Hill then left at 1:02 pm in car 207 and went to 1025 N Beckley.

    The 12:44 pm APB description of Oswald would mean that any decoy looking similar couldn’t be waiting outside the rooming house for the indeterminate period it might take for his ride to arrive. Car 207 would need to toot to indicate it had arrived and it was safe to come out. 

    Rationally too would be Croy staking out the rooming house – to ensure that the decoy did not get cold feet and disappear.

    If Hill was in position behind 410 E 10th at 1:07 pm, that would sit with Tippit at 10thand Beckley Mobil garage – where I suggested Mentzel was, being told to set off east along 10th at 1:07 pm.

    By that assumption then it would be Hill and the other officer (Croy or Stringer) who were also seen by Doris Holan in the rear alley behind 410 E 10th. And one or both were also seen by Virginia Davis immediately after she’d called the police before the ambulance arrived.

    Then when the news of Tippit’s murder was put out on the radio, Westbrook got into Owens’ car with Bill Alexander, arriving at 410 E10th at 1:16 pm. Then immediately after arrival, running in the direction of the alley to rendezvous with the occupants of car 207. Planting a jacket. Westbrook then returned car 207 to the Depository, returning to Oak Cliff at approximately 1:29 pm, this time with Ewell and Stringer in Westbrook’s unmarked car. The round trip would take 8-9 minutes.

    Trying to move the decoy by car as quickly as possible in order to allow for the elimination of Tippit as soon as possible explains the difficulty the Warren Commission had in replicating those movements, on the assumption it was lone Oswald doing all that by foot, bus, foot, cab, foot and again on foot.

    With the decoy no longer in car 207, the only car for him to have been transferred to was Mentzel’s car directly, or via Hill if he had borrowed Poe’s car.

    As I showed in my article on Mentzel, Mentzel was at 10th and Beckley, the Mobil garage, from 1:07 pm. The alley behind E10th ends at Beckley at the piece of land that the garage sat on. Hill’s call makes sense if it was either to advertise to Mentzel where he was, or to advertise to confederates that the switch of cars had occurred. 

    HILL AND THE SHELLS

    At approximately 1:41 pm and 3-4 minutes before it was announced that a suspect had entered the Texas Theater, Hill said on the radio. 

    The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38, rather than a pistol.

    The phraseology Hill used is also unnecessary. If someone thinks someone has been shot with an automatic, then they are shot with an automatic. There’s no need to say, “rather than a pistol”, any more than say “rather than a rifle” or “rather than a shotgun”. Hill’s comment suggests he knew that Oswald would have a pistol and not an automatic, and that was a problem.

    Apologists for Hill have also argued that he mistook the shells of a pistol for an automatic. But that isn’t consistent with his emphatic ruling out of a non-automatic weapon. Hill denied to the Commission that he had made that call which by the timing of the transcript was 1:40 pm.

    Mr. BELIN. Now, also turning to Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, I notice that there is another call on car No. 550-2. Was that you at that time, or not, at 1:40 p.m.? Would that have been someone else?

    Mr. HILL. That probably is R. D. Stringer [note the manuscript has A.B Stringer, the relevant Stringer is HH Stringer, there was an RD Stringer in the force who does not feature that day: Author’s note ].

    Mr. BELIN. That is not you, then, even though it has a number 550-2?

    Mr. HILL. Yes; because Stringer quite probably would have been using the same call number, because it is more his than it was mine. Really, but I didn’t have an assigned call number, so I was using a number I didn’t think anybody would be using, which is call 550-2, instead of the Westbrook to Batchelor as it indicates here.

    By that deception –which as we shall see was deliberate–he wriggled out of answering the question of automatic versus pistol. 

    How do we know it was deliberate? Because later in life Hill admitted, in his 1993 Sixth Floor Museum interview, that he did make that call. He said that it was because of the close proximity of the shells at the murder scene that he assumed they were from an automatic. (Shells from an automatic are self-ejected). But that fails too. Only two shells were found near each other and those were yards apart.

    The expression that code “550/2” was “more his [Stringer] than mine” is very odd. None of the police transcripts put calls out as 500/2 as Stringer. The only call of Stringer was the one on Channel 2 using 551. Hill also testified:

    I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide

    Despite that command to maintain the chain of custody, it was Hill and Westbrook who broke the chain of custody of the pistol that was purportedly retrieved from Oswald but failed to go off as the firing pin was bent. Hill took the pistol from the Texas Theater and kept it until placing it on Field’s desk. But the personnel department—where Hill was working from at the time– isn’t a crime lab or homicide department. (Michael Benson, Who ‘s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 185)

    The cartridges that Officer Poe had acquired at the Tippit murder scene and marked with his initials disappeared. There were no marks on the ones presented as evidence. This is made even more odd by the fact that Hill allegedly told the officer to mark them for evidence. (Benson, p. 364)

    Hill’s confidence in his prevarications on KCRC Radio on 22 November 1963 about his time of arrival at the Tippit murder scene would have been based on his not knowing Earlene Roberts had seen car 207.  And also not knowing there would be a Commission that would have patrol radio transcripts and decent officer testimonies which contradicted his account. 

    Hill said in his interview for the Sixth Floor Museum in 1993 that he was working in Westbrook’s office not only dealing with applications but “investigating complaints”. The personnel office would be an ideal place to lean on officers by holding things against them. He may have had the power to make any officers uncomfortable without their being a collaborator. 

    A question is why didn’t Hill and Westbrook synchronize their stories as to how they got from the Depository to the Tippit murder scene? There is an answer. Westbrook, by not naming the officer who drove, created wriggle room for forgetfulness as an excuse. Had he and Hill synchronized their false stories to a consistent one, then the uncovering of one as false would bring down the other, proving they were in league. Placed in an invidious position an imperfect option may be the least worst choice. 

    Click here to read part 3.

  • Congressman moves to release the remaining JFK files

    Arizona congressman moves to release the last of the Kennedy assassination classified files. Read more.

  • The Death of Tippit – Part 1

    The Death of Tippit – Part 1


    The Death of Tippit – Part 1 – Where was Westbrook?

    By John Washburn

    This article follows on from my prior articles. [https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-tapes-a-re-examination] and [https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-missing-calls-of-officer-mentzel-pt-1] These identified problems with the DPD tapes and transcripts, as well correcting misinformation regarding the timing of Officer J. D. Tippit being seen at Gloco gas station.

    I have not regurgitated or revised anyone else’s prior analysis. I’ve used source data.

    The Dallas Police Department in 1963 operated from City Hall, at Harwood and Commerce/ Main Streets. It was the parking basement of City Hall where Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Oswald on 24 November 1963. The Presidential motorcade turned right at Main Street by City Hall, passing at 12:25pm. 

    This three-part series sets out the irregular movements of a handful of police officers in Downtown Dallas from City Hall; from around 12:45pm to the time police were alerted to the murder of Tippit and then proceeded to that scene at 410 E 10th, Oak Cliff.

    The command structure of southwest Dallas for 22 November 1963 was changed with Lieutenant Fulgham being sent to traffic school at Northwestern University, Illinois. Sgt. Calvin Owens stood in for him. But overt control over Tippit was changed at some time before 12:30 pm to covert control by Sgt Hugh Davis.

    Owens’ Warren Commission testimony has the advantage that it is wholly consistent with what is on the radio tapes and in CE 2645, the allocation of cars and the modified command structure on 22 November 2022. Indeed, Owens was the only person who revealed to the Warren Commission that Tippit’s command had changed over the lunch break. 

    Owens asked difficult questions on the radio after Tippit was shot: such as what was he doing in Oak Cliff? His evidence conflicts with that of superior officers who had testimonies that were self-contradictory. His questions also provide reinforcing evidence that the 12:45 pm radio call from dispatcher Murray Jackson calling Tippit to Oak Cliff was an after-the-event fake. Owens wouldn’t have needed to ask had he heard that call. Jackson would have been able to answer if in real time he had given such an instruction.

    Owens also asked, on patrol radio in the hour after Tippit was shot, why no one had contacted Tippit’s wife and asked where was Sgt. Davis, the covert supervisor of Tippit. Davis never replied. Why? Where was Davis? 

    None of those irregularities that Owens was dropping out were followed up on by the Commission.

    Officer Thomas Alexander Hutson displays similar consistency as Owens. He let several cats out of the bag, including that Officers Hawkins and Baggett made a landline call from the Mobil gas station at 10th and Beckley at approximately 1:30pm. That is the location my Mentzel article [https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-missing-calls-of-officer-mentzel-pt-1] placed Mentzel and Tippit at 1:07pm, two minutes prior to Tippit being shot. 

    Owens and Hutson are a litmus test of how officers ought to act and testify. 

    II

    Contrast this to Captain William Westbrook, head of DPD Personnel. His testimony displays either deliberate lies, or the forgetfulness and cognitive dissonance of someone not suited for gainful employment in any police role. If infiltration of DPD needed a senior person with the power to co-opt, coerce and corrupt then Westbrook fits the requirements. His testimony lends itself to suspicion. 

    Westbrook’s testimony regarding 22 November 1963 included not being able to remember the name of police officers who drove him to the Tippit murder scene–and later to the Texas Theater (which is and was actually a cinema). This is despite a journalist being in the same car as Westbrook on both occasions, saying the driver was Westbrook himself. The evidence presented here helps explain why Westbrook would have done that. There are also problems with the accounts of how Westbrook, Reserve Sgt. Kenneth H Croy and Sgt. Jerry Hill got to the Tippit murder scene and what they were doing once there. 

    Hill was a patrol officer and former head of press relations with DPD. He said he had been seconded to Westbrook’s Personnel Department to ‘investigate complaints’ shortly before 22 November 1963 and to vet “prospective police officers”. Hill was an odd choice for any ethical role (as covered later). He was reported to the FBI by a news reporter in California for false statements made on radio news the evening of 22 November 1963.

    Hill tried to attach alibis for himself as a shadow to Sgt. Owens – to account for how Hill got to the Tippit murder scene. Alibis that Owens did not reciprocate. As covered later, appropriating other people’s movements was a recurring trait of Hill.

    Sergeant Owens said in his Warren Commission testimony that he drove his patrol car taking Westbrook and Assistant District Attorney Bill Alexander. Three in a car. (WC Vol. II, p. 78).

    Hill’s Commission testimony said that he went with Owens driving, DA Bill Alexander and Jim Ewell (a Dallas Morning News reporter) over Commerce Viaduct, and then down Beckley. No mention of Westbrook, but four in a car (WC Vol. VII, p. 43).

    Westbrook said in his Warren Commission testimony he went with Sergeant Henry Stringer (his deputy in the personnel office) and an unknown officer who drove. Three in a car. (WC Vol. VII, p. 109).

    Jim Ewell said he went with Stringer and Westbrook and said Westbrook drove them over Houston Viaduct past his office at the newspaper. Three in a car and an entirely different route. [https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day]

    Adding to that are discrepancies as to how Westbrook got to the Texas Theater for the arrest of Oswald, and who he was with. 

    Ewell said Westbrook took him and Stringer in an unmarked car parked at the front of the theater. Westbrook said he arrived with Sgt. Stringer and FBI Agent Bob Barrett, an unknown squad car driver and parked in the alley at the back. Stringer, in his report of 3 December 1963, said he met an unknown officer in 100 block S Patton who drove him to the rear of the Texas Theater. [https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340278/m1/1/]

    This was an exchange between three Warren Commission staff as the final report was being drafted:

    ‘How critical of the Dallas police should we be?”. ‘We can’t be critical enough.’: ‘That’s just the problem. If we write what we really think, nobody will believe anything else we say. They’ll accuse us of attacking Dallas’ image. The whole report will be discredited as controversial. We’ve just got to tone it way down.’(William Manchester, The Death of a President t, p. 426)

    Despite any “toning down” the Warren Report begs question after question concerning some DPD officers. But the Warren Commission was a case of changing facts to fit a theory, and some DPD witnesses were allowed to make up facts by lying without effective challenge. DPD was protected from being investigated itself. 

    The ace syndicated journalist and razor-sharp star of What’s My Line Dorothy Kilgallen wrote on 29 November 1963:

    “The case is closed, is it? Well, I’d like to know how in a big smart town like Dallas, a man like Jack Ruby – operator of a striptease honky tonk – could stroll in and out of police headquarters as if it were a health club at a time when a small army of law enforcers was keeping a “tight security guard” on Oswald. Security! What a word for it.”

    Witness evidence is not circumstantial; but in any criminal case, a key question is which witnesses to believe. Hence credible police investigation should seek out lies. The DPD didn’t do that –and remarkably – liars included a small coterie of police officers. At the Sergeant level and above to Captain. 

    A reason for committing perjury is to avoid revealing worse offenses.

    The approach taken here has been to:

     1) identify the stated movements of all relevant police officers from 12:45 pm to the entry into the Texas Theater at 1:45 pm 

    2) identify statements and testimonies that are in direct conflict with each other, and 

    3) reconcile those with the timeline per the patrol radio tapes, with weight against those officers who provably lie, and weight in favour of those that do not 

    4) take statements by members of the public at face value, unless there are signs of coercion. 

    The purpose of that is to assess what were the underlying actions and movements that certain officers needed to obscure. Core assumptions carried from the evidence in my prior articles are as follows. 

    1. Roger Craig and Butch Burroughs were correct. Oswald left Dealey Plaza by Rambler and was in the Texas Theater just after 1:00 pm and remained there until he was arrested. 
    2. Earlene Roberts did see police car 207 outside 1026 N Beckley and it tooted just before the person left at approximately 1:04 pm. 
    3. There was an imposter acting as a decoy on the Marsalis bus. That person got off the bus after 12:50 pm, several minutes later than the Warren Commission’s timeline. Because the bus was held up longer because of the backup of traffic on Elm Street. There was no person of relevance in William Whaley’s cab. 
    4. Tippit left Gloco gas to go to the vicinity of Lansing Street and 8th Street where off-duty Officer Olsen was (that patrol district was depleted of its normal patrol officers). Mentzel rendezvoused with Tippit at 10th and Beckley at 1:07 pm (real-time). Tippit was shot at approximately 1:09 pm. 

    If there was premeditated involvement of some police officers in assisting the Kennedy assassination then Tippit’s murder was either similarly premeditated or it was spontaneous. For it to be spontaneous then Tippit, under the covert command of Sgt. Hugh Davis, must have done something whilst at or shortly after leaving Gloco to spark it, which both upset the role he was supposed to play and necessitated his murder. 

    I posit that Tippit’s role was to assist a decoy who was playing out Oswald as a supposed ‘lone nut’ fleeing by bus. But that Tippit backed out when he heard on patrol radio that Kennedy had been shot in the head. Tippit then became a major risk to the conspirators. 

    Bill Simpich says that events “went south” after the assassination of Kennedy. That is consistent with an assassination that went as planned but was followed by muddled events that weren’t planned. 

    If Tippit was murdered without police involvement then it is difficult to explain why there were so many irregularities in how certain officers arrived at the murder scene and what they did when they were there. 

    Let’s see how those assumptions play out. 

    OWENS AND POE

    By the DPD radio only two police cars left the Depository in response to T. F. Bowley’s 1:11 pm call stating Tippit had been shot. Those were the cars of Officer JM Poe with Officer LB Jez (call sign 105) and Sgt. Owens (call sign 19) said he took Westbrook and Deputy DA Bill Alexander. 

    Owens said he left the Depository on hearing Bowley’s call and his time of arrival at the Tippit murder scene per the radio (see later) fits with his testimony. He arrived at 1:16 pm, seconds after Officer Poe (call sign 105) who also left from the depository in car 94. Owens’ testimony is wholly consistent with his calls on the tapes, and ambulance travel time.

    Poe, like Owens, gave inconvenient testimony. Poe said he’d marked the bullet cartridges found at the Tippit murder scene, which were identified as from an automatic weapon. The cartridges, by the time of the Commission, had no such markings. Thus the story that they could have come from the nonautomatic pistol found on Oswald is now questionable.

    Poe also submitted a report (covered later) with Owens on 22 November 1963 regarding murder scene witness Helen Markham. As first responders, she told them that the assailant threatened to kill her. No other subsequent statements or testimony raised that. She never raised that again. Why? If the assailant had been Oswald it would be relevant evidence. But if the assailant wasn’t the dead  Oswald then was she intimidated in giving later evidence?

    PART-TIME RESERVE SERGEANT KENNETH HUDSON CROY

     

    Croy, owner of a Mobil gas station in Oak Cliff, and a rodeo performer, is an example of putting a DPD hat on someone with all the implied trust that carries. But his testimony takes any credibility relying on that status away. 

    Much of Croy’s testimony was made off the cuff because he was only supposed to testify regarding his role on 24 November for the shooting of Oswald. It was only because Croy let slip to the female Commission stenographer that he’d been at the Tippit murder scene that he was then asked about his movements on 22 November. He filed no report on his activities that day. He made no (surviving) announcements on patrol radio. 

    His role on 24 November is not fully covered here, other than to say that the level of questioning by Counsel Griffin indicates doubts as to his version of events. Griffin was one of the more curious questioners.

    Croy was the officer who organized the roster on 24 November 1963 for those in City Hall regarding the transfer of Oswald to the County Jail. He can be seen on TV footage standing immediately behind Jack Ruby. Croy moves the press pack forward and then Ruby shoots Oswald. Croy forgot the names of officers present despite compiling the roster for who would be present.

    Croy’s evidence of 10 am 26 March 1964 (WC Vol XII) warrants a large extract, as his obfuscation and self-contradiction cannot be paraphrased. What is relevant are his said locations and timings. 

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, now, tell me about the conversation that you had with our court stenographer here prior to coming in here, about Tippit?

    Mr. CROY. Oh, it was at the scene over where Officer Tippit was killed, at the scene.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you at the scene when Tippit was there?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Unassigned?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. I take it you are nodding your head?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. What time were you at the scene where Tippit was killed?

    Mr. Croy. I watched them load him in the ambulance.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Were you on reserve duty that day?

    Mr. CROY. Yes. I was stationed Downtown in the, I believe it was the 1800 or 1900 block of Main Street.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you in a patrol car?

    Mr. CROY. No; I was on foot.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you in uniform?

    Mr. CROY. In uniform.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Where were you at the time President Kennedy was shot?

    Mr. Croy. Sitting in my car at the city hall. I would guess, I don’t know, because I didn’t know he was shot until, I guess, several minutes after it was.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Is that where you were located when you heard he was shot?

    Mr. CROY. No. I was on Main Street trying to go home.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. You were driving your car down Main Street?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. About where were you on Main Street?

    Mr. CROY. Griffin.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Griffin Street?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. What did you do when you heard that President Kennedy had been shot?

    Mr. CROY. I didn’t do anything. I was right in the middle of the street with my car hemmed in from both sides. I couldn’t go anywhere.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. As soon as you got unhemmed, what did you do?

    Mr. CROY. I went by the courthouse there and there were several officers standing there, and I asked if they needed any help.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you drive your car to the courthouse?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Which courthouse?

    Mr. CROY. There was only one courthouse.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. There is a county courthouse?

    Mr. CROY. There is.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. There is a Federal courthouse, also, but this is the one right there by the plaza and near the Texas School Book Depository?

    Mr. CROY. The old red courthouse.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. On Houston Street?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Was that the corner of Houston and Main?

    Mr. CROY. Houston and Main and Elm.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. How long after you heard that President Kennedy was shot did you arrive there?

    Mr. CROY. Oh, I guess it took me at least 20 minutes to drive those few blocks.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. What time would you say it was when you arrived at the courthouse?

    Mr. CROY. I don’t know.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Who did you see when you arrived there?

    Mr. CROY. Oh, there was some officers standing on the corner, I don’t know.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you inquire of somebody there if you could be of assistance?

    Mr. CROY. Yes.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Whom did you inquire of?

    Mr. CROY. I don’t know. They were just standing on the corner, and I asked if I could be of any assistance.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Then, what did you do?

    Mr. CROY. I proceeded on home.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Which way did you drive home?

    Mr. CROY. Out Thornton to Colorado, and Colorado to-I can’t think of the street. It was Marsalis.

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Was that-

    Mr. CROY. Or Zangs

    Mr. GRIFFIN. Thornton to Zangs?

    The route Croy said he took to go home wasn’t his way home; which would have been due south from City Hall, not due west. And Inspector Sawyer’s testimony (Vol. VI, p. 315) contradicts Croy’s description of traffic conditions on Main Street. 

    Sawyer said he passed down Main from the same blocks after the motorcade passed City Hall. He arrived at the Depository at 12:42 pm. But he also put out a call on the radio stating that any officers on crowd duties on Main (which included Croy) should report to the Depository. He said the only traffic issues on Main were caused by dispersing pedestrians crossing the road.

    Officer Hutson also did the same route for the same time period. He said (Vol. VII, p. 26) that he went down Main, on his three-wheeler motorcycle to collect road signs after the passing of the motorcade at Main and Harwood (City Hall). Like Sawyer, he said the issue was pedestrians, not traffic.

    Jim Ewell said Officer Valentine had driven him and Hill from City Hall to the Depository in “probably less than two minutes” that too was approximately 12:45 pm (as per Ewell above link [https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day]). 

    Croy said he was on Main Street hemmed in on both sides. That is demonstrably false. Main Street was not only not obstructed it was two-way, with two lanes in each direction. It was Elm Street which was three lanes one-way and became obstructed until traffic was released. Croy therefore seems to have indirectly revealed that he was actually on Elm Street, even further off his route home. Was he trying to conceal that? 

    III

    Croy’s reference to Griffin Street is interesting. If Croy wasn’t at Griffin and Main Street, but was at Griffin and Elm, then he can be placed close to where the Marsalis bus was held up and the person –a policeman in civilian clothes, who can’t have been uniformed Croy himself–got out of the car to tell the driver of the bus that Kennedy had been shot. 

    Croy then said policemen in Dealey Plaza told him he wasn’t needed. But Inspector Sawyer had commanded on the radio that all officers on crowd duties were needed in Dealey Plaza. 

    Croy next said he was at Colorado and Zang where he heard the radio call and got to the Tippit murder scene as Tippit’s body was being loaded into the ambulance. But the ambulance was dispatched after a phone call from a neighbor before the patrol radio call of 1:11 pm from Temple Bowley. The ambulance only had to travel 300 yards from the Dudley Hughes Funeral Home in the 400 block of E Jefferson and it arrived at the end of Bowley’s announcement and stayed less than a minute. Dudley Hughes said that from taking the call to delivering Tippit to Methodist Hospital took under 5 minutes. The autopsy request was timed as 1:15 pm. So how could Croy have gotten there by reacting to that call?

    Added to that, the immediate neighbor to 410 E10th, Virginia Davis telephoned the police as soon as the shooting had occurred.  She then went outside. The police were already there and the ambulance arrived after that. (WC Vol VI p454). She said:

    Mr. BELIN. All right, after this, did police come out there?

    Mrs. Davis. Yes; they were already there.

    Mr. BELIN. By the time you got out there?

    Mrs. DavIs. Yes, sir.

    Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

    Mrs. Davis. Well, we just stood out there and watched. You know, tried to see how it all happened. But we saw part of it.

    Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

    Mrs. Davis. We stood out there until after the ambulance had come and picked him up.

    With that in mind, did Croy arrive even earlier? That is before the Bowley radio call had been put out? Or was another police officer either in the vicinity or else very close by when the murder happened? The latter is consistent with Doris Holan seeing police officers in a car at the rear of 410 E10th at the time Tippit was shot. (Joe McBride, Into the Nightmare, pp. 494-95) 

    Croy may have been present for the impromptu shooting of Tippit. At best he arrived when he said he did but was covering for another officer (or officers) who were there earlier. 

    Croy then said he discharged himself from that scene to go home. He said he then happened to be driving by one block from the Texas Theater when the police first entered. He said he saw action at the front and back but Oswald was not by then arrested. He gave a more detailed description of the action and its progress than would be expected of someone driving on a major thoroughfare (Zang) looking sideways at something happening a block away. 

    Croy was asked how he knew that Oswald had not been arrested by then. That tripped him up. He changed his story mid-flow to say he’d been at the Tippit murder scene and had then headed to the Texas Theater because of what he heard on the radio. He was asked why he left that scene (his third self-discharge of the day). He said he wasn’t needed. How would he know if he didn’t stop? 

    Croy said he then went to Austin’s Barbecue –two miles further south from the Texas Theater.  He wanted to meet his wife for lunch. He added that she would be cross if he was late. 

    When asked how he had arranged lunch he introduced another story.  He said his wife’s car passed him by in Dealey Plaza and that he asked her if she wanted lunch, conversing with her through a car window. 

    Ponder this:  Mrs. Croy had been in Dealey Plaza minutes after the President had been shot. And this was followed by the murder of a Dallas policeman.  Would not Croy being late for lunch be a bit trivial? 

    To say the least, Croy’s behaviour from at least 12:30 pm to after 2:00 pm is rather unusual.  

    WESTBROOK’S OFFICE AND CAR 207

    Deputy Chief of Police Charles Batchelor testified on 23 March 1963 and produced Batchelor Exhibit CE 5002. [https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Batchelor_Ex_5002.pdf] That is a pamphlet of DPD personnel for November 1963. It states that the Personnel Bureau comprised at officer level, Captain W.R. Westbrook (In Charge), Sgt H.H. Stringer (Deputy), WM McGee, Detective, Joe Fields, Detective and Patrolman JL Carver.

    Hill claimed to have been working in Westbrook’s Bureau on the day of the assassination.  But he does not appear in CE 5002 as being attached to it for November 1963. He is shown as a patrol Sergeant for the Downtown subdistrict, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm day shift.

    Also, there is Earlene Roberts’ observation of car 207 outside Oswald’s boarding house tooting at 1:04 pm. This was in her FBI statement of 29 November 1963.  It caused the need for CE 2645, an inventory of officers and cars as an attempt to rule them out of being in the vicinity of 1026 N Beckley around 1:00 pm. CE 2645 is useful evidence as it can be used to identify other discrepancies with cars and officer movements.

    Some Warren Commission apologists have sought to say Earlene Roberts was confused in her Warren Commission testimony as to the car number. Well, she wasn’t confused on 29 November 1963, nor was Westbrook’s statement 5 days later. Westbrook said on 4 December 1963 car 207 was Officer Valentine’s car and it had been parked at the Depository. His statement doesn’t actually confirm that it stayed at the Depository after Valentine had arrived in it.[https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340243/]

    Hill was driven from City Hall to the Depository by Officer Valentine (call sign 104) in car 207 with reporter Jim Ewell. They arrived in about 2 minutes by a circuitous route to avoid the traffic. The arrival was also photographed. (Source: Ewell and CE 2645).  

    washburn hillarrival

    Hill (using code 550/2) announced they were en route on the radio, immediately before the 12:48 pm time stamp. “550/2 and 104 en route to Elm and Houston, code 3.” That time fits with departure being triggered by the 12:44 pm APB with an alleged Oswald-like description in it, and its mention of the Depository. Assistant Warren Commission Counsel Wesley Liebeler said of that alert in internal correspondence about a draft of the Commission’s report on September 6, 1963: 

    Following that quote it says that Brennan’s description “most probably” led to the radio alert sent out to police in which the assassin was described. Can’t this be more definite? One of the questions that has been raised is the speed with which the assassin was described, the implication being that Oswald had been picked out as a patsy before the event. The Dallas police must know what led to the radio alert and the description. If they do we should be able to find out. If they do not know, the circumstances of their not knowing should be discussed briefly.

    Sgt Gerald Hill said in his testimony:

    At this time I went back to the personnel office and told the captain that Inspector Sawyer requested assistance at Elm and Houston Streets. The captain said, “Go ahead and go.” 

    “And he turned to another man in the office named Joe Fields and told him to get on down there. “I got on the elevator on the third floor and went to the basement and saw a uniformed officer named Jim M. Valentine doing, as he said, “Nothing in particular.” And I said, “I need you to take’ me down to Elm Street.” “The President has been shot.” 

    We started out of the basement to get in his car, and a boy named Jim E. Well [sic Ewell], with Dallas Morning News, had parked his car in the basement and was walking up and asked what was going on, and we told him the President was shot.”

    Of all the cars in all the DPD force, Earlene Roberts had come up with that one.

    HILL – “THE BIG EXPANSION MOVE”

    Hill said in 1993 for the Sixth Floor Museum that his transfer to [https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/gerald-jerry-l-hill-oral-history/] Westbrook’s department was because the presidential visit was a ‘big expansion move for the police department’. An odd turn of phrase. 

    When then asked what his role in the presidential visit was, he said “absolutely nothing”. Does this not seem like a contradiction?

    Hill in that interview confirms he went with Officer Valentine to the Depository, but he puts his movements earlier than is apparent from the radio. By the radio, he is en route after 12:45 pm at 12:47 pm. Per Ewell, the ride took 2 minutes [https://kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ewell.html] 

    Hence Hill arrived at the Depository by approximately 12:50 pm. Hill was photographed leaning out of the window of the Sixth Floor of the Depository. Thus that could have been as early as 12:50 pm. Hill claimed to have found the snipper’s nest and three shells on the Sixth Floor after 1:00 pm with two deputy Sheriffs. Were that true then he’s ruled out of being in car 207 after 1:00 pm. But it wasn’t true.

    Deputy Sheriff Like Mooney testified as being the first person to see the shells on the Sixth Floor. (Vol 3 p 19) And he testified Captain Fritz was then the first person to handle them. Mooney places the time as “approaching 1 pm” and testified that he then “hollered down” to get the crime lab on the scene. He made no mention of Hill and said he stayed there “not over 15 or 20 minutes”. Nor did Captain Fritz – head of Homicide mention Hill. Mooney’s time and story are corroborated by the radio call by Sgt. Harkness at 12:56 calling for Barnes (508 – Crime Lab section). Barnes 30 seconds later is signaled as en route. 

    Hill’s story fits a pattern of his appropriating other people’s events and playing with timings. If Hill is lying, and it sure seems like he is, then he doesn’t have an alibi after 1:00 pm. But created a false one.

    HOW DID HILL ARRIVE IN OAK CLIFF?

    Hill’s time and method of arrival at the Tippit murder scene – he said to the Warren Commission it was with Sgt. Owens, DA Alexander, and reporter Ewell – is also a tangled web.  And this is so through his various accounts. Which are rendered dubious by the evidence of Owens, Ewell, and Poe. In fact, no one said they went with Hill. 

    One problem for Hill is that the testimony of Owens is consistent with the patrol radio. But Hill’s is not. Owens’ testimony was that the trigger for his departure was Bowley’s first call (which was at 1:11 pm).

    Mr. OWENS. No. I told Inspector Sawyer that I was assigned to Oak Cliff and an officer was involved in the shooting, and I was taking off, so I proceeded. I got in my car, and Captain Westbrook and Bill Alexander, an assistant District attorney, also was in the car with me and we started out to-I think the call came out at 400 East 10th or 400 East Jefferson. There was confusion there where the situation was. It was corrected and we went to the scene of the shooting.

    By the radio the clarification of the precise address whilst Owens was on his way was at 1:13 pm. Owens arrived at 1:16 pm.  He was the second car responder at the scene, announcing his arrival seconds after Officer Poe, who was carrying Officer Jez. Both Owens and Poe left the Depository, and the most direct route would be over Commerce Street Viaduct, down N Beckley Avenue. Poe’s Commission account was:

    Mr. BALL. And what did you find when you got there?

    Mr. POE. We found-.

    Mr. BALL. What did you see?

    Mr. POE. Found the squad car parked toward the curb, and a pool of blood at the left-front wheel of the car. The ambulance had already picked him up and the officer had already left the scene when we arrived. We had – I don’t know how many people there were. Looked like 150 to 200 people around there; and Mrs. Markham, I talked to her first” and we got a description of the man that shot Tippit.

    Poe doesn’t mention Owens’ car already being there, which is consistent with the radio calls placing Poe (car 105) arriving a few seconds before Owens (both 1:20 pm by the tape time). 

    But Hill testified on the basis he’d arrived with Owens.

    “Tippit had already been removed. The first man that came up to me, he said, “The man that shot him was a white male about 5’10”, weighing 160 to 170 pounds, had on a jacket and a pair of dark trousers, and brown bushy hair.” At this point, the first squad rolled up, and that would have been Squad 105 which had been dispatched from Downtown. An officer named Joe Poe, and I believe his partner was a boy named Jez. I told him to stay at the scene and guard the car and talk to as many witnesses as they could find to the incident, and that we were going to start checking the area.”

    Hill cannot have been speaking to witnesses before Poe turned up, as Owens, at the earliest, arrived simultaneously with Poe’s arrival. That is in line with Owens never putting Hill in his car anyhow. And there were no other cars announcing arrival at the scene – within a 5-minute window – before or after the arrival of Poe and Owens. This leaves open the possibility that Hill was there already, but is trying to disguise his presence.

    HILL INVESTIGATED FOR LYING ON NEWS RADIO

    Making matters worse for Hill is that his unpublished Commission file has an FBI note reporting that he had given a false story at 6:45 pm on 22 November 1963 to KCRC-Radio Sacramento. For KCRC he said he went to the murder scene with the ‘acting lieutenant’ (Owens). Hence missing out on Ewell and Alexander. This is the transcript of what he told KCRC:

    That call came out – the Acting Lieutenant in Oak Cliff and I were together standing there talking to the Inspector and he ordered us – being that we had all the police in town pulled down there on Elm Street – he ordered us to leave this investigation of the President’s shooting and go to Oak Cliff. We did. When we got out there the officer had already been picked up. We got a description of the suspect and started following his path as best we could.

     

    We had information that he was in one of two houses that were vacant over on East Jefferson. We went in over there and called for some more help to cover the buildings and everything. We shook those down and he wasn’t there, and then we got a report that he was in the library at (inaudible) and Jefferson”.

    [https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/70/4605/7460570/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/hill_gerald_l/hill_gerald_l.pdf]

    That event can be timed as 1:29 pm (DPD time, 1:33 pm) as Owens said.

    DISP           Do you have any information for us, 19?

    19                None. We’re shaking down these old houses out down here in the 400 block of East Jefferson right now.

     

    But if Hill arrived with Owens that day he’d have had a similar timeline of events to that of Owens. One thing Hill missed out on is the discovery of the discarded jacket sometime before 1:21 pm. Hill did not offer to KCRC at 6:45 pm on 22 November 1963 any explanation of what he did in the intervening 13 minutes.

    That KCRC transcript came to the attention of the Commission via Chet Casselman of KSFO on 10 June 1964. And that file has an FBI note of 8 June 1964 where Hill had to admit that some of what he said on the radio was so-called hearsay and false. He had said:

     “The man [Oswald], I understand has resorted to violence before and possibly shot another policeman somewhere”.

    Given that Oswald was young and spent a good deal of his adult life outside of the USA and in the Marines, the idea that he had previously shot a policeman could not be credible. Shooting a policeman in the US in 1963 was a rare occurrence. Overall, Hill’s radio interview shows more concern about pinning Oswald for the shooting of Tippit than Kennedy. 

    HILL AND THE JACKET IN THE WRONG PLACE

    Hill’s story of arriving, and the first action being the search of the houses for KCRC was not the starting point of what he claimed to have done in his testimony to the Warren Commission.  But his testimony flounders. Per the radio transcript witnesses said the man on the run had immediately run down Patton, west along E Jefferson, and then cut through Ballew Texaco Service Station and run into the alley behind. There was then a search of houses in E Jefferson, then there were false alarms regarding the entry to a church and then the library.

    The first radio call in that sequence was from Officers Griffin and Mackie at 1:20 pm. It said: “We believe we’ve got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.”

    But Hill said to the Commission  (and note he is shown the radio transcript): 

     

    Mr. HILL. All right, I took the key to Poe’s car. Another person came up, and we also referred him to Poe, that told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot. That would be Dudley Hughes’ parking lot in the 400 block of East Jefferson-and taken off his jacket.

    Mr. BELIN. You turned this man over to Poe, too?

    Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

    Mr. BELIN. I notice in the radio log transcript, which is marked Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, that at 1:26 p.m., between 1:26 p.m., and 1:32 p.m., there was a call from No. 19 to 531. 531 is your home number, I believe? Your radio home station?

    Mr. HILL. Yes.

    Mr. BELIN. That says, “One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he is in this block, 400 block East Jefferson, behind his service station. Give me some more squads over here.” “Several squads check out.” Was that you?

    Mr. HILL. That was Owens.

    Mr. BELIN. Were you calling in at all?

    Mr. HILL. No. That is Bud Owens.

    Mr. BELIN. You had left Owens’ car at this time?

    Mr. HILL. I left Owens’ car and had 105 car at this time.

    Mr. BELIN. Where did you go?

    Mr. HILL. At this time, about the time this broadcast came out, I went around and met Owens. I whipped around the block. I went down to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred, and made a right turn, and traveled one block, and came back up on Jefferson.

    Mr. BELIN. All right.

    Mr. HILL. And met Owens in front of two large vacant houses on the north side of Jefferson that are used for the storage of secondhand furniture. By then Owens had information also that some citizen had seen the man running towards these houses. At this time Sergeant Owens was there; I was there; Bill Alexander was there; it was probably about this time that C. T. Walker, an accident investigator got there; and with Sergeant Owens and Walker and a couple more officers standing outside, Bill Alexander and I entered the front door of the house that would have been to the west—it was the farthest to the west of the two shook out the lower floor, made sure nobody was there, and made sure that all the entrances from either inside or outside of the building to the second floor were securely locked. Then we went back over to the house next door, which would have been the first one east of this one, and made sure it was securely locked, both upstairs and downstairs. There was no particular sign of entry on this building at all. At this point we came back out to the street, and I asked had Owens received any information from the hospital on Tippit. And he said they had just told him on channel 2 that he was dead. I got back in 105’s car, went back around to the original scene, gave him his car keys back, and left his car there, and at this point he came up to me with a Winston cigarette package.”

    “The next place I went was, I walked up the street about half a block to a church. That would have been on the northeast corner of 10th Street in the 400 block west of the shooting, and was preparing to go in when there were two women who came out and said they were employees inside and had been there all the time. I asked them had they seen anybody enter the church, because we were still looking for possible places for the suspect to hide. And they said nobody passed them, nobody entered the church, but they invited us to check the rest of the doors and windows and go inside if we wanted to. An accident investigator named Bob Apple was at the location at that time, and we were standing there together near his car when the call came out that the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre.”

    A giveaway that Hill is not reliable here is that the jacket was not discarded in the parking lot of Dudley Hughes, it was found in the parking lot of Ballew Texaco Service Station which was across Jefferson Boulevard (opposite) from Dudley Hughes.

    What Hill appears to have done is misread the transcript that was given to him at the testimony session and was trying to attach his movements to that misunderstanding. Hence, he turned the 1:20 pm call regarding the jacket at the Ballew Texaco Service Station parking lot opposite Dudley Hughes to the jacket being at Dudley Hughes parking lot, something that did not happen. 

    Someone who’d been in on the real action wouldn’t make such a mistake by misreading a transcript. It would be held in their head. Hill made the same mistake later in his testimony when he was questioned about Oswald after his arrest:

    Mr. BELIN. Any jacket?

    Mr. HILL. No, sir; he didn’t have a jacket on at this time.

    Mr. BELIN. All right, go ahead.

    Mr. HILL. I understand a light-colored jacket was found in the parking lot of the funeral home, as a man had previously stated, but I don’t recall actually seeing this jacket.

     

    HILL AND THE FALSE AMBULANCE STORY

     

    There is a further problem with Hill’s testimony. This was Owens (19) at approximately 1:21 pm (1:26 DPD time), having arrived at the scene. 

    DISPATCH: 19, where did the officer go?

    19:               I saw some squads going towards Methodist real fast. I imagine that’s where he is.

    That stacks up and Owens was driving. But Hill (using 550/2) had said a minute earlier per the transcript. 

    DISPATCH: Have you been to the scene?

    550/2:           The officer was already gone when I got there. He was driving car number 10.

    DISPATCH: Do you know what ambulance took him? We had three going.

    550/2:         No. Dudley Hughes passed in front of me going to Beckley. He looked like he might have had him.

    The need for two calls is odd if Hill and Owens had been in the same car. Also odd is the phrase “passed in front of me” as if he was driving, and “the officer was already gone when I got there”, if Hill had been with Owens. It would be “we.” 

    The only cars arriving from Downtown able to have seen the Dudley Hughes ambulance would have been Poe’s or Owens. But Owens made no reference to an ambulance, merely squad cars heading in the direction of the hospital. That indicates that by the time Owens was on Beckley the ambulance had already reached the hospital. That is consistent with Tippit having arrived at the hospital at approximately 1:14 pm and being declared dead on arrival by 1:15 pm.

    But there is yet another problem. Hill said the ambulance ‘passed in front’ but an ambulance traveling north on Beckley to Methodist wouldn’t pass in front. Paths would cross. 

    By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, Hill had corrected the “passed in front” to “passed us”. But he claims to have used 19 (Owens’ number) when the number Hill had used was 550/2. His testimony was:

    “In the process of getting the location straight, and I think it was at this point I was probably using 19 call number, because I was riding with him, we got the information correctly that the shooting had actually been on East 10th, and we were en route there.

    We crossed the Commerce Street viaduct and turned, made a right turn to go under the viaduct on North Beckley to go up to 10th Street. As we passed, just before we got to Colorado on Beckley, an ambulance with a police car behind it passed us en route to Methodist Hospital.”

    Belin clearly gave Hill an easy ride. Hill’s testimony was at odds on that point with the radio transcript, and once again Hill was appropriating something Owens had done. Hill observing Poe as the first squad car to roll up does make sense if Hill had already arrived in car 207 and parked in the rear driveway of 410 E 10th, accessed by Lansing Alley having dropped the decoy off at a point to the east of the murder scene. That is also consistent with what Virginia Davis said about seeing policemen immediately after she’d called the police, after Tippit was shot, before the ambulance arrived.

    Remember, Croy and Hill lied about what they did before and after Tippit was shot. Croy in particular lied about being “hemmed in on both sides” on Main Street, whilst what he described in terms of lane configuration was Elm Street, and Griffin is near where the Marsalis bus was on Elm when “Oswald” (I posit the decoy) got off. 

    Hill lied on KCRC to make Oswald look like a serial cop killer. Hill’s biggest problem though was admitting he saw Poe’s car “roll-up”. That would not have happened if he’d arrived with Owens.

    On the evidence outlined, Hill had arrived at the Tippit murder scene in car 207 shortly before Tippit was shot and rendezvoused with Westbrook who arrived with Owens, then Westbrook could have told Hill what he saw on his journey in Owens’ car. But Hill only got half the story and hence put an incorrect statement on the radio at 1:20 pm concerning the ambulance. Hill’s aim in doing that was likely to create an alibi to account for how he had got to the scene.

    To test that assumption further, Westbrook is relevant, as is what Hill did next. 

    WESTBROOK THE FORGETTER

    Westbrook said in his Commission testimony of 6 April 1963:

    “Mr. WESTBROOK. I was in my office and Mrs. Kinney, one of the Dispatchers, came into the office and told us, and of course-it’s the same as everybody says- we didn’t believe it until a second look at her and I realized it was so, and so, there’s a little confusion right here because everybody became rather excited right quick, but somebody, and I don’t know who it was, came into my office and said they needed some more men at this Texas Depository Building. You know, I didn’t review my report before I came over here I didn’t have a chance. I just came off of vacation and they hit me with this this morning as soon as I got to the office. I can’t recall whether or not it was the Dispatcher’s office, but I think it was-somebody in the Dispatcher’s office had told us they needed some more men at the Texas Depository Building; so I sent the men that were in my office, which were then Sergeants Stringer and Carver, and possibly Joe Fields and McGee, if they were in there; it seems like McGee was, and I think- I sent them to the building, and then I walked on down the hall spreading the word and telling the other people that they needed some men down there, and practically everybody left immediately. I sat around a while-really not knowing what to do because of the-almost all of the commanding officers and supervisors were out of the city hall and I finally couldn’t stand it any longer, so I started to the Texas Depository Building, and believe it or not, I walked. There wasn’t a car available, and so I walked from the city hall to the Depository Building, and I would stop on the way down where there would be a group of people listening to somebody’s transistor radio and I would stop and catch a few false reports, you might say, at that time, until I reached the building. Do you want me to continue on?”

    So, by that, Hill who was assigned to Westbrook, left his office at approximately 12:45 pm with Valentine then driving him. 

    Westbrook continued:

    Mr. Westbrook. After we reached the building, or after I reached the building, I contacted my sergeant Sgt. R. D. Stringer [sic, it is HH Stringer per the Batchelor Exhibit, R D Stringer was a different officer and not a sergeant], and he was standing in front and so then I went into the building to help start the search and I was on the first floor and I had walked down an aisle and opened a door onto an outside loading dock, and when I came out on this dock, one of the men hollered and said there had been an officer killed in Oak Cliff.

    Well, then, of course, I ran to my radio because I am the personnel officer, and that then became, of course, my greatest interest right at that time, and so, Sergeant Stringer and I and some patrolman—I don’t recall his name-then drove to the immediate vicinity of where Officer Tippit had been shot and killed.

    Of course, the body was already gone, the squad car was still there, and on one occasion as we were approaching this squad car, a call came over the radio that a suspicious person had been sighted running into the public library at Marsalis and Jefferson, so we immediately went to that location and it was a false-it was just one of the actually—-it was one of the employees of the library who had heard the news somewhere on the radio and he was running to tell the other group about Kennedy.

    So, we returned to the scene and here I met Bob Barrett, the FBI agent, and Sergeant Stringer and Barrett and I were together, and then an eyewitness to the shooting of the officer from across the street, a lady, came to the car, and she was telling us how this happened.

    Mr. BALL. Where was your car parked at that time?

    Mr. Westbrook. It wasn’t my car—we didn’t have one. I don’t know where this officer went after he let us out at the scene.

    Mr. BALL. An officer drove you down to the scene?

    Mr. Westbrook. An officer drove us to the scene.

    Mr. BALL. Where were you when this lady came up who was an eyewitness?

    Mr. Westbrook. We were at the squad car-Tippit’s squad car-it had never been moved.

    Mr. BALL. You were near 10th and Patton?

    Mr. Westbrook. And she was telling us what had occurred.

    Mr. BALL. Do you remember her name?

    Mr. Westbrook. No; the other officers got it.

    Westbrook trips himself up more than once. He said he “ran to his radio”, but he’d previously said he didn’t have a car as he’d walked. He refers to stopping on the way for the ““false reports as you might say””. How would he know they were false? 

    How could he “start the search” at the Depository? Searching was already underway before 1:00 pm and after a 20-minute plus walk, he couldn’t have started it. (As covered later, the three shells were found before 12:56 pm). His “believe it or not” is defensive. 

    Westbrook slipped out “we reached” and then corrected it to “I reached”. Also, if Stringer was already “out the front” then the “I contacted” him makes no sense. Another issue is that with so many officers sharing vehicles to get to the Depository the line that there were no cars available is not credible. 

    Researcher and Warren Commission advocate Dale Myers says that:

    Sgt. Henry H. Stringer told me in 1983 that Captain Westbrook rode with him from city hall to the depository along with two other officers – Frank M. Rose, Burglary and Theft Bureau (driving) and Joe Fields, a detective in the Personnel Bureau. They split up upon arrival and helped searched [sic] the TSBD (films support Stringer’s recollection), then got back together just before the call came over the radio about the Tippit shooting. 

    Of course, Stringer’s twenty-year-old recollection isn’t as strong as Westbrook’s sworn 1964 testimony, but who knows? More important, in the big scheme of things, what does it matter?[http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/westbrook-croy-and-tippit-murder.html?m=1]

    Myers downplays discrepancies that actually matter a lot. If Stringer was correct then he confirms that Westbrook’s forgetfulness extended beyond forgetting who he’d travelled with, to forgetting whether he walked for 20 minutes or not. And getting all that wrong under oath, plus forgetting people’s names, all this despite being head of personnel. In the “big scheme of things” the fact is that testimonies of certain senior police officers were unreliable. 

    There is also a non-sequitur in the Myers extract. The first paragraph (without references in support) claims that there was photographic evidence to back Stringer’s recollection. But by the paragraph immediately afterward things were shrugged off to a ‘but who knows’ about Stringer’s recollection. 

    Myers’ approach to vindicating the Warren Commission has the recurring naïve assumption that all police officers were clean and all their testimony was correct. The above demonstrates that this cannot be assumed. Either Stringer, Westbrook, or both were unreliable. In putting out information to support the Warren Commission theory, Myers actually throws up anomalies that serve to undermine it. 

                               THE DPD AND THE STOPPED BUS

    Dallas’ overturned prosecutions conducted under the now notorious District Attorney Henry Wade sit with a crime clear-up rate that is consistent with the routine practice of rigging of evidence against defendants. Wade, DA in 1963, had had a prosecution conviction rate of 100% until he lost Roe v Wade (1970).  Wade had withheld evidence in cases where convictions were later overturned. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 196-98)

    Had Westbrook with his “sat around a while” and “couldn’t stand it any longer” left as early as 12:50 pm – on foot stopping to hear “false reports”– then he would have arrived after at least 1:10 pm. Adding on “contacting Stringer” with some dwell time at the Depository, his timeline makes it difficult for him to have arrived by the time of Bowley’s call at 1:11 pm and immediately get into the car with the very fast responder Owens. 

    Assuming there is also some truth in what Stringer said, then Westbrook didn’t walk but arrived by car at the Depository earlier than his walking story implies, and sought to disguise that, and then departed with Owens. 

    Any credible independent police investigation with maps, blackboards/whiteboards, would have seen through the problems with the movements of certain police officers immediately, merely on the basis of the above. So should the Commission. 

    Owens actually gave a very strong alibi for Westbrook’s presence when Tippit was shot – which also rules out Westbrook being in car 207 just before Tippit was shot. But Westbrook did not take it up. That begs the question what was Westbrook doing before and after Tippit was shot that made him prevaricate? If all he was doing was covering for Hill, then his own misrepresentations wouldn’t need to be so elaborate before Tippit was shot.

    Westbrook was working in civilian clothes that day. He had also just returned to work, saying he had been on vacation. 

    Mr. BALL. Do you wear a uniform? 

    Mr. WESTBROOK. Well, it is optional. I don’t wear one. 

    Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, were you assigned any special duty? 

    Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; other than just my own routine duties. 

    Mr. BALL. What were those duties that day? 

    Mr. WESTBROOK. 8 15 to 5 15. 

    Mr. BALL. And were you in uniform on that day?

    Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir. 

    It is peculiar for Ball to have brought up the uniform. But he asked that question after Cecil McWatters testified on 26 March 1964 and 6 days after Milton Jones’ FBI statement. Westbrook’s plain clothes could account for McWatters saying a man stopped the bus, whilst Milton Jones said it was a policeman. Did Ball suspect it might be Westbrook? Croy had given his remarkable testimony prior on 26 March 1963, ten days before Westbrook appeared.

    McWatters had told the story of the man stopping the bus which appeared in the Dallas Morning News on 28 November 1963. He said that the man was in work clothes and about 55. Westbrook was an old-looking 46. 

    It is therefore posited that Hill and Westbrook likely knew who the intended suspect should be; and that the 12:44 pm APB was itself false evidence from within City Hall and the trigger for what was to follow next. Which was evidence planting at the Depository to frame not only Oswald, but set up the Depository as the origin of all the shots at the motorcade. 

    Tippit’s covert position at Gloco immediately after 12:30 pm and Angell, Parker, Lewis, and Nelson in covert positions on other viaduct exits indicate something was planned of the nature of assistance for getaways. To assist in a getaway at a low level merely needs to turn a blind eye. 

    If Tippit turned at or before 12:45 pm, and drove to the area of Lansing and 8th, for a rendezvous with his controllers less than two minutes from Gloco, then it would be imperative to get the decoy off the bus and get him to 1026 N Beckley by whatever means as quickly as possible. That being needed to keep alive the false narrative that Oswald had reached 1026 N Beckley of his own accord.

    There has to be a reason why that particular Marsalis bus was singled out, boarded, and held up for over 40 minutes. 

    Click here to read part 2.

  • Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 2

    Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 2

    Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 2

    Gary L. Aguilar, MD

    Commission Exhibit #399, the “Magic Bullet”

    Decades ago, Josiah “Tink” Thompson and I detailed the reasons we had for suspecting that CE #399, the  Magic Bullet, is not the original bullet that was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. We published our findings online in an essay entitled “The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?” [1]

     

    The crux of it is that the FBI told the Warren Commission that one of their agents, Bardwell Odum, interviewed the two Parkland Hospital employees who had found the stretcher bullet, Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright. And when Odum showed them CE 399, said the Bureau, they identified it as the stretcher bullet.[2] That was false: Odum never interviewed them.* Furthermore, according to the Bureau’s own, once-secret records, the witnesses told the Agent who did, Gordon Shanklin, that they did not recognize #399. That inconvenient FBI memo never reached the Warren Commission, which was left to believe that Tomlinson and Wright agreed #399 was the stretcher bullet.

    (*Tink and I interviewed Odum in his home in Dallas in the 1990s. He flatly denied he’d ever shown any bullet to any Parkland employees, a claim backed up by the fact no FBI files exist of Odum’s supposed interview.)

    Suspicion about CE 399’s bona fides first arose in 1966 when Tink Thompson interviewed Parkland’s O. P. Wright about it. A former cop and hunter with a trained eye for ‘guns and ammo,’ Wright said that the round-tipped #399 was not the Parkland bullet. Rather, the bullet he and Parkland engineer Darrell Tomlinson had found on 11/22/63 had a pointed tip. To show what he meant, he pulled a pointed-tipped bullet from his desk that he said looked like the 11/22 shell, and handed it to Tink. A photograph of Wright’s bullet is on page 175 of Tink’s 1967 book.[3]

    But wait, Wagner exclaims. There is evidence that at least Tomlinson agreed that #399 looked like the stretcher bullet! It was dug up by Pat Speer,[4] he tells, and it comes from two credible, independent sources, Warren skeptic Ray Marcus and Earl Golz, a Dallas Morning News reporter. They both said that Tomlinson had told them (in 1966 and 1977, respectively) that #399 resembled the stretcher bullet. (p. 117-120) 

    Our counselor admits that Tink and I were right that Agent Odum didn’t interview the two men. The record shows that Dallas Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Gordon Shanklin took the interview. But Wagner evades the most important evidentiary point: what Shanklin actually said in the declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas. 

    For the benefit of the jury, here’s what Shanklin wrote the DC Bureau, as Tink and I published it decades ago: 

    “SAC, Dallas” (i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” (emphasis added) 

    This memo is the only record, and an official record, of what Tomlinson and Wright told the FBI about CE 399 in 1964. It proves that the Bureau lied to the Warren Commission in CE # 2011 about their saying it resembled the stretcher bullet. And, as Wagner knows but prefers the jury not to, it predates whatever Tomlinson may have told Ray Marcus and Earl Golz in ’66 and ’77. Wagner credits Tomlinson’s later story even though he himself cites the evidence that Tomlinson may not have told Marcus or Golz the truth.

    Wagner recounts that Tomlinson told Marcus in 1966 that he had met with FBI agent Shanklin and O.P. Wright in 1964 (p. 118), and that he advised Shanklin that #399 looked like the stretcher bullet. That’s not what Shanklin told his bosses in Washington. No doubt Shanklin’s account is the more objective. For, if anything, Shanklin would have been happy to report that Tomlinson and Wright told him that the dubious  CE 399 was the actual bullet they found on a Parkland stretcher. Wagner discounts what Tomlinson and Wright told the high-ranking FBI agent in 1964, when their memories were fresh. And he touts Tomlinson’s questionable, later word, seemingly oblivious to the inconvenient fact that Shanklin’s 1964 memo debunks the convenient tale Tomlinson gave Ray Marcus in 1966 and Earl Golz in 1977.

    It never seems to have occurred to our counselor that when Tomlinson was interviewed by Marcus, 2 years after the FBI interviewed him, and 13 years later by Earl Golz, that by then he might have learned the benefits of aligning with official preferences.  It shouldn’t be ignored that in 1964, Arlen Specter repeatedly leaned on a balky and uncomfortable Tomlinson to say that he found the Magic Bullet on Governor Connally’s stretcher. [5][6] Tomlinson stammered and stalled under oath, but later demonstrated on film to Walter Cronkite that he found the bullet on the stretcher that Tink Thompson had described in Six Seconds in Dallas, Ronnie Fuller’s stretcher–not Connally’s.[7]

    Furthermore, after Tomlinson and Wright, the next two people in the “Magic Bullet’s” alleged chain of possession, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen and the Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley, were also unable to identify #399, a fact that the FBI reported accurately in CE # 2011. Wagner tries to discount this by arguing their failure to identify was merely a failure to “positively identify” the bullet because they hadn’t inscribed their initials on it, a claim Tink and I dismantled in our original essay.

    The bottom line? The first four people in the “Magic Bullet’s” chain of possession said they couldn’t identify CE 399. The FBI lied about it, and Tomlinson probably lied about it, too. Wagner does the best he can with what little he has to make this problem go away. He hasn’t succeeded.

    The X-Ray Evidence: Enhanced vs Unenhanced

    JFK’s X-ray evidence is of particular importance to our counselor. For Dr. Wecht, myself, and others have argued that the presence of tiny, “dust-like” fragments in the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull X-ray can best be explained by his having been struck in the right front quadrant of his skull by a soft-nosed, hunting round, not Oswald’s jacketed bullet. This worries Wagner. “The nature of the tiny fragments is the most persuasive argument offered by the CRC (critical research community),” he writes, “at least regarding the head wounds of the president (sic) – to establish the multiple-gunman thesis and thus conspiracy.” (p. 305, emphasis added) Wagner is right to fret about the important implications of this evidence. But why?

    Unjacketed, soft-nosed rounds don’t behave like Oswald’s jacketed bullets do. Jacketed rounds pass through bone and break up once on the other side into small, but not tiny, “dust-like” fragments. (Fig. 12) Soft-nosed ones flatten on impact and burst into a “snowstorm” of minuscule fragments that cluster near the point of impact. And because they flatten on impact, unjacketed bullets impart more directional momentum to targets than jacketed ones do. The X-ray findings of injuries from the two types of missiles are distinctly different and distinctly important in the JFK case. 

    Wagner’s “expert,” again Larry Sturdivan, correctly described those differences to the HSCA. 

    The Select Committee asked, “Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F–53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy’s skull (Fig. 11), can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?”

    “Well,” he replied, “this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced x-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet that was fully jacketed and therefore not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet, because in either of those cases the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and, consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far. In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes. (emphasis added throughout)[8]

    Elaborating in his 2005 book, Sturdivan reproduced on the same page both Kennedy’s enhanced lateral skull X-ray and the unenhanced lateral X-ray of a skull shot with a Carcano round in the Biophysics Lab’s tests in 1964.[9] The pattern of bullet fragmentation was very similar, he said. He was right, but for reasons he didn’t at all understand. (Figs. 11 and 12.)

    Re JFK’s enhanced X-ray, he wrote: “… Lead fragments are scattered within the skull, reaching the frontal bone, not clustered at the entry pointFrangible bulletswould disintegrate very quickly, producing a dense cloud of fragments at the entry site … the extent of fragmentation of the bullet (in the enhanced X-ray) is characteristic of that of a fully jacketed military bullet that deformed and broke apart upon impact with the skull … It is not that of a frangible, soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet.”[10] (Fig. 11) (emphasis added)

    Sturdivan is simply wrong. Cyril Wecht and I explained why in a piece in the AFTE Journal that Wagner discusses in his book, and which he ignores. (p. 301-303) It’s not complicated. 

    Because he was neither a radiologist nor a physician, Sturdivan didn’t know how to read X-rays. He was reading the wrong X-ray when he compared Kennedy’s enhanced X-ray (Fig. 11) with the unenhanced film of the blasted test skull (Fig. 12). An apples to oranges comparison. The process of “enhancing” an X-ray renders minuscule fragments invisible. In Kennedy’s original, still secret,unenhanced X-ray, there is an obvious cloud of “dust-like” fragments that don’t show up in the enhanced film that Sturdivan discussed. And that “cloud” is located right where critics believe JFK was struck: the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull, just inside the “entry point,” to borrow from Sturdivan.

    Had he done it properly and scientifically, he would have compared Kennedy’s unenhanced post-mortem X-ray with the unenhanced X-ray of the test skull he reproduced in his book. (Why the HSCA hired someone as unqualified as Sturdivan to give an expert interpretation of the X-ray of the Century is a mystery, though perhaps not to those inclined to the view that the HSCA wanted a witness to tell them what they wanted to hear.)

    The unenhanced X-ray of the Biophysics test skull (Fig. 12) shows a pattern that is similar to Kennedy’s disanalogous, enhanced X-ray (Fig. 11) — a scattering of small fragments, but none of the “dust-like” radiolucencies that are present in JFK’s original, unenhanced X-rays. 

    The Snowstorm

    In the Biophysics experiment (Fig. 12), the test skull was shot from behind, and the missile entered where Oswald’s is said to have entered Kennedy’s, low through the occipital bone. The small fragments run across the lower portion of the skull, virtually undeflected. In this enhanced X-ray of JFK, small fragments run along the top. But the “dust-like” fragments, the “snow storm” of fragments, that are easily seen in the original, unenhanced films, aren’t seen because the process of “enhancement” has blotted them out. 

    GAWagner2 Fig11

    Figure 11. Enhanced lateral X-ray taken of JFK during the autopsy. (HSCA Exhibit F 53; 1HSCA240) 

    Red arrows: The autopsy report and Sturdivan and Wagner maintain Oswald’s bullet entered low, through the occipital bone. The Clark Panel and the HSCA’s Forensics Pathology Panel said it entered high, through the parietal bone. When the Biophysics Lab shot test skulls through the occipital bone, the resulting fragment trail was low. (Fig 12) By contrast, the fragment trail in Kennedy’s X-ray runs very close to the top of JFK’s skull, above: orangearrow. Wagner and Sturdivan maintain Oswald’s low-entering bullet left the fragments along the top of JFK’s skull, and that there were no “dust-like” fragments on his X-ray.

    However, JFK’s original, still secret, unenhanced X-rays at the National Archives do show myriad, minuscule fragments that are not visible in this enhanced image. They are clustered in the right front quadrant of JFK’s lateral skull X-ray. 

    GAWagner2 Fig12 

    Figure 12. Unenhanced, lateral x-ray of a test skull shot with a Mannlicher Carcano by the government’s Biophysics Lab.[11] The jacketed bullet entered low, through the occipital bone, as Oswald’s is said to have done. The fragment trail is low, as the undeflected Mannlicher Carcano round traversed the lower portion of the skull. 

    As with JFK’s enhanced X-ray, there is a scattering of small fragments. But no “dust-like” fragments are visible on this X-ray such as those that are visible, and were described in JFK’s original, unenhanced X-rays. JFK’s unenhanced, lateral skull X-ray would look like this X-ray if he’d been shot with a Mannlicher Carcano. But it doesn’t.

    The presence and location of the “snow storm” of dust-like fragments in the right front quadrant of JFK’s original, unenhanced skull X-rays destroys Wagner’s case for a lone gunman. It proves a non-jacketed bullet, a non-Oswald bullet, blew into the right front part of JFK’s skull. Were those X-rays available to the public, I would show them, and the issue would vanish. That those inconvenient “dust-like” fragments exist is not just my and Cyril Wecht’s opinion. 

    In fact, they were reported by Kennedy’s chief pathologist, James Humes, MD, also by a Secret Service agent, by an FBI Agent, as well as other government consulting, expert radiologists. This evidence has largely lain unrecognized and unappreciated in the record since 1964.

    • During his Warren Commission testimony in 1964, Dr. Humes said: “(JFK’s X-rays) had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material…These tiny fragments that were seen dispersed through the substance of the brain in between were, in fact, just that extremely minute, less than 1 mm in size for the most part.” A few moments later, Dr. Humes was asked, “Approximately how many fragments were observed, Dr. Humes, on the x-ray?” “I would have to refer to them again (the X-rays),” he answered, “but I would say between 30 or 40 tiny dust-like particle fragments of radio opaque material, with the exception of this one I previously mentioned, which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit.”[12]
    • Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, an autopsy witness, testified that the fragments in JFK’s skull X-ray “looked like a little mass of stars; there must have been 30, 40 lights where these pieces were so minute that they couldn’t be reached.”[13]
    • The HSCA interviewed FBI Agent James Sibert and reported, “the X-ray had many ‘… flecks like the Milky Way… .’ Sibert said a lot of the metal fragments were tiny.”[14]
    • Russell Morgan, MD, the chairman of radiology at Johns Hopkins University, was the Clark Panel’s radiologist. “Distributed through the right cerebral hemisphere are numerous, small irregular metallic fragments,” the Panel reported, “most of which are less than 1 mm in maximum dimension. The majority of these fragments lie anteriorly and superiorly. None can be visualized on the left side of the brain and none below a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull.”[15]
    • Cook County Hospital Forensic Radiologist John Fitzpatrick, MD, examined JFK’s X-rays in consultation for the ARRB and agreed, writing: “There is a ‘snow trail’ of metallic fragments in the lateral skull X-rays which probably corresponds to a bullet track through the head, but the direction of the bullet (whether back-to-front or front-to-back) [sic] cannot be determined by anything about the snow trail itself.”[16]
    • Practicing neurologist Michael Chesser’s work requires examining skull X-rays. He examined the original, unenhanced JFK X-rays at the National Archives with special permission. He came to the same conclusion. “This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound,” he wrote. “One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull X-ray. Tiny fragments are seen on the inner side of this right frontal skull defect, and the largest fragments were noted in the back of the skull.”[17]

    DiMaio’s Patriotic Folly

    Forensic pathologist Vincent DiMaio, MD, explained the meaning of a “snow trail” or “snowstorm”: “[T]he snowstorm appearance of an X-ray almost always indicates that the individual was shot with a centerfire hunting ammunition…”[18] That is, a soft-nosed, non-jacketed round. And as per Sturdivan, the right-forward location of the tiny fragments is a clear indication of what is visible in Zapruder film: an entrance wound in the right front quadrant of Kennedy’s head from an unjacketed bullet that left a tell-tail snowstorm of “dust-like” fragments in that area. 

    For, although he thought that the shot at Zapruder frame 312-313 went from back to front, Sturdivan admitted what is well understood among “ballistics/forensics” authorities: just as the X-ray “snowstorm” can’t tell you whether the bullet was going back-to-front or front-to-back, Sturdivan said that “[a] similar explosion would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction.”[19]

    Wagner, and his X-ray “expert” Sturdivan disagree. Our counselor clings to the theory Oswald’s bullet could have left the “snowstorm” of fragments in the right front part of JFK’s skull based on comments DiMaio made in a later edition of his book. 

    In it, he suggested that the breach of the shell’s jacket after Oswald’s bullet struck Kennedy’s skull from the rear might have released the “dust-like” fragments seen in Kennedy’s unenhanced X-rays. (p. 323) However, DiMaio never examined Kennedy’s X-rays; he offered no evidence for his theory; and the Biophysics skull-shooting tests offer stout counterevidence: they show that MCC shells don’t release “dust-like” fragments. (Fig. 12) The absence of minuscule fragments in the X-ray of the test skull crushes the DiMaio-Wagner-Sturdivan theory. For as Richard Feynman once put it, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong.”[20]

    [As an aside, Sturdivan finally did see the original, unenhanced images in 2004 at the National Archives. He was emphatic under oath to the HSCA that the absence of tiny fragments in the enhanced X-ray proved that a jacketed bullet, not a hunting round, had felled JFK. But when he reported on his examination of the originals that dramatically do show a snowstorm of fragments in the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull, he said nothing about them. (Nor did he mention them in his 2005 book, JFK Myths.) He either didn’t notice them, or elected not to say they were there.[21] The HSCA’s, and Wagner’s, X-ray “expert” conveniently didn’t see what he didn’t want to see, but what credentialed experts did see.

    X-ray Evidence of a Second Headshot?

    Besides the “snow trail” of dust-like fragments in the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull, there is also a trail of small, but not minuscule, fragments that runs along the top of JFK’s skull in both the enhanced and the still-secret nonenhanced lateral skull X-rays. It does not align with the supposed low, occipital entrance wound specified in Kennedy’s autopsy report, although the autopsy surgeons said that it did. [22]> Nor does it line up with the higher entrance wound the Clark Panel identified, although that Panel said that it lined up to that higher entrance spot that they chose. [23] In fact, as anyone can see, the fragment trail in JFK’s lateral X-ray is about 5 cm above where both the Clark Panel and the HSCA said it was. (Fig. 11, orange arrow.)

    That high fragment trail offers evidence for a second headshot circa Z-frames 327-328, one striking high from behind with a jacketed round that left small, but not “dust-like” fragments. Such a possibility is also backed up by the “jiggle” evidence in the Zapruder film (Z-frame 331 is blurred, which fulfills the 3-frame delay Luis Alvarez posited for a shot from the distant School Depository.[24]), by Professor James Barger’s acoustics analysis that indicated a shot from the rear at this moment, and by JFK’s rapidly forward-moving skull after Z frame 328, as explored by Thompson in Last Second in Dallas. Both Sturdivan and Wagner do not agree. Improbably, they claim Oswald’s bullet entered Kennedy’s skull low, was deflected upward, and left the high fragment trail at the top of Kennedy’s skull. Sturdivan, however, didn’t always see things that way.

    Sturdivan, Wagner, and the Improbable Bullet Deflection

    In 1978, Sturdivan told the HSCA that the evidence was clear and that the Forensic Pathology Panel got it right: “[T]here is no indication of any (bullet) track in the lower half of the skull. It definitely was in the upper part.” (Wagner, p. 305-6) [25] However, in 2003 he apparently changed his mind. He then endorsed the “low entrance” claim of Parkland neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD, with whom he had collaborated in a paper that appeared in the journal Neurosurgery. “There was a laceration approximately 1 inch in diameter located close to the midline of the cranium,” Grossman said, “approximately 1 inch above the external occipital protuberance,” and he produced a sketch of what he saw (Fig. 13).[26]<

     GAWagner2 Fig13

    Figure 13. Left: diagram prepared by Parkland neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD, depicting the entry wound he saw on 11/22/63. He said it was ~1 inch in diameter and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP) in occipital bone. Right: Ida Dox’s drawing of the back of Kennedy’s head. It is a reasonably accurate rendition of an original autopsy photograph. [Dr. Grossman has said that JFK’s actual wound looked much different than the Dox image.[27]]

    Against the Clark Panel and the HSCA’s forensic pathologists, Wagner endorses Grossman and Sturdivan that the entry wound was low, just like the autopsy surgeons said it was (Chapter 10). Neither Sturdivan, Wagner, nor Grossman appear cognizant of the fact that X-rays, and Sturdivan’s own sworn testimony, pose virtually insurmountable obstacles for their theory.

    As per the lateral X-ray of the skull shot with Oswald’s type of ammo in the government’s tests (Fig. 12 and 15), the fragment trail is low and horizontal. Virtually undeflected, it follows the striking bullet’s trajectory across the test skull. Of course, upon impact, bullets may be deflected and veer away from the straight-line path. But the test bullet didn’t deflect much, if at all, as jacketed bullets like Carcano shells tend not to. Could Oswald’s bullet have been so severely deflected from its low entry point as to leave its fragments along the top of the President’s head, a full 100mm above the point of entry?

    Sturdivan and Wagner say: Yes, it could, and it did. No, it couldn’t, according to the government’s skull shooting tests and, ironically, Wagner’s trusty expert. Sturdivan has testified about bullet deflection. Speaking from experience, he said,

    “Well, let’s put it this way. With most military bullets, like the M-193, the bullet would curve almost immediately because the yaw begins to grow almost immediately. With the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, it is much more stable, the yaw begins to grow much more slowly, and it curves much more slowly. So that at a target of 4 or 5 inches of soft tissue, that bullet would not deviate appreciably from its path… .” (emphasis added) [28]

    Recall that he told the HSCA that Oswald’s bullet had entered high:  “[T]here is no indication of any track in the lower half of the skull. It definitely was in the upper part.” [29]> (Wagner, p. 305-6) Sturdivan’s obvious point was that Oswald’s bullet wasn’t much deflected, so the fragment trail at the top of JFK’s skull X-ray was close to the path of the bullet. “I would place the original track as being somewhat lower than that trail of fragments indicated through there,” he testified, “certainly not much lower.” (emphasis added) [30]

    The X-ray of the test skull backs up Sturdivan’s claim: after entering the skull, the fragment trail does not deviate much from the bullet’s low trajectory. (Figs. 12 and 14)

    GAWagner2 Fig14 

    Figure 14. Left: Lateral skull X-ray of Biophysics Lab test skull shot with a Mannlicher Carcano round from the rear. The bullet entered just above the external occipital protuberance. Note the fragment trail is horizontal and low (green line). The higher, red line is the path Sturdivan/Wagner propose Oswald’s bullet took after striking near the bottom of Kennedy’s skull.

    Right: JFK’s enhanced lateral X-ray. Against Sturdivan’s testimony that MCC shells don’t much deflect, Wagner says that Oswald’s bullet entered JFK’s skull low and was dramatically deflected upward. He believes it left the fragment “trail” that we see in JFK’s X-rays at the very top of the skull, the red line. Note that there are no fragments between Wagner’s/Sturdivan’s low entrance wound and the “trail” at the top of Kennedy’s skull. 

    I’ll leave it to the jury to decide whether Wagner and Sturdivan are right about the President’s X-rays.

     

    Wagner “Debunks” the Acoustics

    To dismiss the HSCA’s acoustics evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll, our counselor ignores credentialed authorities who are agnostic on the question of conspiracy. Instead, he cites non-credentialed, pro-Warren Commission sources. A little context, first.

    Apparently, a Dealey Plaza motorcop’s microphone was stuck open in broadcast mode during the murder. Sounds were picked up, fed to, and recorded by the Dallas police. The HSCA hired two independent groups of acknowledged acoustics experts to analyze the recording. The first was M. R. Weiss and E. Aschkenasy; [31] the second was J. E. Barger, S.P. Robinson, E.G. Schmidt, and J.J. Wolf. [32] Both groups concluded that the recording revealed that gunshots had been fired, and that there was a high probability that one of the shots was fired from the grassy knoll. This finding arrived late in the HSCA’s proceedings, and it raised a ruckus. As the HSCA went out of business, two HSCA members recommended further study.

    “The acoustical evidence of a gunman on the grassy knoll has enormous significance for our Nation,” Congressman Christopher J. Dodd wrote. “This by itself makes real the idea of a conspiracy to kill the President. The data upon which the experts base their conclusion should, therefore, be reviewed by other noted experts in this field.”[33] (emphasis added)

    Similarly, Congressman Robert Edgar suggested, “I recommend that the Congress immediately order a full and detailed restudy of the acoustics work, perhaps through the National Science Foundation. Included in this restudy, a panel of scientific experts with knowledge of acoustics should be employed to monitor the methodology used in the study to ensure accuracy and determine the level of weight which should be given to this evidence.”[34] (emphasis added)

    As Thompson minutely documented in Last Second in Dallas, the government ignored the sensible, specific recommendations of the HSCA. Two “reinvestigations” were done. Neither used credentialed acoustics authorities. Instead, this hot potato was first handed to the FBI, which in 1964 had “proved” there was no conspiracy. A thoroughly inadequately trained Bureau agent, B. E. Koenig, wrote a paper “disproving” the HSCA’s acoustics authorities. [35] His work was promptly debunked and discredited.[36] [37]

    The Sorry Story of Luis Alvarez

    So the government then turned to its trusted deputy: Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez. Though lacking any acoustics expertise, the Nobelist had sterling credentials as a Warren Commission devotee, and had previously set science aside to run cover for the government on another controversy. That story is worth a few words that Wagner denies the jury. It helps contextualize Alvarez’s subsequent work on the acoustics.

    Israel and South Africa detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean on 22 September 1979, the so-called “Vela Incident.” [38] It was inconvenient for President Carter’s nonproliferation policy that America’s ally, Israel, was testing nuclear weapons fashioned with American technology. To make the story go away, the government engaged Alvarez. He assembled a team and investigated, reporting that the “double flash” detected by the Vela satellite – invariably betokening a nuclear explosion – was, in this unique case, not a nuclear event. Rather, it was caused by a meteorite striking the satellite. As Thompson pointed out,Alvarez was promptly debunked by both expert government investigators and on-site Israeli sources that Seymour Hersh personally interviewed. [39]

    As had the Vela Incident, the conspiratorial implications of HSCA’s acoustics posed an uncomfortable problem for the government. So again, the government tapped Alvarez. Given his longstanding pro-government position on JFK’s murder, the Nobelist did not chair the Ad Hoc Committee on BallisticAcoustics.[40] But he influenced who would be on it. None of the selectees had any acoustics training or expertise, including its chair, physicist Norman Ramsey–with whom Alvarez had long collaborated on prior government projects. He also picked Richard Garwin and F. Williams Sarles, both physicists who’d served on the disinforming Vela Panel. Alvarez thereupon worked closely with the “Ramsey Panel” to debunk the HSCA’s acoustics. 

    Does Wagner embrace the experts who are truly expert in the field in which they offer opinions, such as the credentialed acoustics authorities? No. He goes instead with the uncredentialed Ramsey Panel, whose pro-government conflicts, prior history, and lack of expertise he omits any mention of–despite knowing of them from Thompson’s book, which he cites frequently. He also cites, in extenso, the conclusions of the untrained, non-acoustician Michael O’Dell (pp. 184-187, 191, 418-9, 423, 425, 428, 433.) Apparently, they told him what he wanted to hear. And with little more than that, he closes the case on the acoustics in favor of the official narrative. 

    Conclusion

    I would have much liked to have written a more favorable review, and would have if Wagner had written a different book. I’ve known him for seven years and bear him no personal animosity. He’s been a welcome guest in my home, attending JFK mini-conferences. He is invariably polite, well-mannered, and polished. Like Hoch, he presents himself as a “fair witness,” as someone who is detached, objectively minded, and willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But I’ve long thought that that’s not the real Wagner. Beneath a veneer of cautious, objective detachment, I see a devoted partisan. 

    My first suspicion arose in the wake of Wagner’s presence supporting anti-conspiracy activist Lucien Haag in a debate at a mock trial of Oswald in Houston in 2017. As he had in a paper in the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners Journal (AFTE), Haag argued that Governor Connally’s back wound was so large and oval that it proved Oswald’s bullet (#399) had not hit point forward, undeflected. It instead must have struck the governor sideways, in “yaw,” because it had tumbled through JFK’s back and neck before it hit Connally. 

    Wecht and I had thoroughly debunked that same Haag myth two years before the Houston “trial” in the pages of the AFTE Journal.[41] It was foolish of Haag to gift us the opportunity to debunk him again in Houston. When later I read his first book, I discovered that Wagner had himself already debunked Haag’s fairy tale. Yet he remained mute as Haag tried foolishly to pass off this falsehood before the jury. This episode suggested to me that Wagner’s loyalty is likely less to truth than to the official narrative, and to junk-peddling “experts” like Haag who agitate in support of it. His latest book shows that our counselor’s stripes haven’t changed. 

    He’s still privileging pro-government nonexperts and dubious evidence while sedulously ignoring true experts and hard evidence. Does he really expect his jury of readers to accept the debunked claims of his “authorities” when their most demonstrable virtue is not their expertise in the fields in which they offer opinionson JFK, but their loyalty to the government’s lone gunman wheeze? I don’t think he can. Wagner has thus failed the jury. He has also failed his dwindling band of Warren Commission coreligionists who cleave to the official mythology, defending a government that has lied about the death of JFK since the day he was murdered. 

    But Wagner may yet redeem himself. He made a pledge that I hereby also make: “If I am wrong in certain respects, I will admit error and work to correct it.” (p. 13) I’ll do that no matter what he does, and I invite corrections. Let’s see if he does the same.

    ________________________________________

    Footnotes

    [1] https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

    [3] Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York, Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967.

    [4] Speer, P. Chapter 3b: Men at Work. https://www.patspeer.com/chapter3bmenatwork

    [5] Warren Commission Hearings, V.6:130 ff. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=140

    [6] Fonzi, G. The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter. Greater Philadelphia Magazine 1 August 1966 pp. 38-45, 79-88, 91.

    [7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE  Watch video starting at the 30 minute, 10 second mark for Tomlinson’s explicitly identifying the stretcher he found a bullet on, which wasn’t Connally’s. See also Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York. Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 161-164. Thompson describes the stretcher Tomlinson identified, on which Tomlinson found hospital gloves and a stethoscope It was pediatric patient Ronnie Fuller’s stretcher, exactly as Tomlinson demonstrated to Cronkite during his on-camera interview. 

    [9] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, Fig. 38, p. 173.

    [10] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 177.

    [11]Source: Sturdivan, LM, Review of JFK Photographs and X-Rays at the National Archives, September 23, 2004. Available https://kenrahn.com/Noncons/LarryNARA.html

    [12]Warren Commission testimony of James H. Humes, MD, Vol. 2:353. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Humes.pdf

    [13]Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman. Vol. 2, p. 100. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Kellerman.pdf

    [14] MD 85 – HSCA Interview Report of August 25, 1977 Interview of James W. Sibert, p. 3-4. https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md85/html/md85_0003a.htm

    [16] “Inside the ARRB: Appendices – Current Section: Appendix 44: ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, after viewing the JFK autopsy photos and x-rays,” p. 2. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=225

    [17] Chesser, M A. Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographshttps://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/

    [18] DiMaio, VJM. Gunshot wounds – Practical Aspects of Firearms, Forensics, and Ballistics Techniques, Third Edition, p. 166. https://books.google.com/books?id=8eCYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=soft+nosed+bullets,+Xrays,+snowstorm&source=bl&ots=0sNfkZezak&sig=ACfU3U1e6__SLS9tthavEYrGpK1kIi3rcg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqtPCrqtfoAhUBqJ4KHSN8BSEQ6AEwFXoECA0QMQ#v=onepage&q=snow storm&f=false

    [19] Sturdivan, LM, The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 171.

    [21]Sturdivan, L. “Review of JFK Photographs and X-Rays at the National Archives, September 23, 2004.”https://kenrahn.com/Noncons/LarryNARA.html

    [26] Sullivan, D, Faccio, R, Levy ML, Grossman, RG. THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A NEUROFORENSIC ANALYSIS—PART 1: A NEUROSURGEON’S PREVIOUSLY UNDOCUMENTED EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS OFNOVEMBER 22, 1963Neurosurgery. VOLUME 53 | NUMBER 5 | NOVEMBER 2003, p. 1023-1024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14580267/

    [27] Grossman never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone reported that, “He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound…”. (Groden R. Livingstone. High Treason-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51. See also “Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy–A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

    [31] Weiss MR and Aschkenasy E. An Analysis of Recorded Sounds Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy…

    https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_1_Weiss.pdf

    [32]  Barger JE, Robinson SP, Schmidt EG, and Wolf JJ. Analysis of Recorded Sounds Relating to the Assassination of President...https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf

    [34] DISSENTING VIEWS BT HON. ROBERT W. EDGAR TO THE FINAL REPORT, p. 499. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pdf/HSCA_Report_4_Remarks.pdf

    [35] Koenig, BE. Acoustic Gunshot Analysis – The Kennedy Assassination and Beyond (Conclusion) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/acoustic-gunshot-analysis-kennedy-assassination-and-beyond

    [36] Thompson. J. Last Second in Dallas. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2023, p. 275-300.

    [37] See also memo from HSCA Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, to the FBI’s William Webster dated 4.2/1981 that included a technical refutation of FBI Agent Koenig’s acoustics analysis written by James Barger and the acoustics authorities at Bold, Beranak and Newman, Inc. Cambridge, Mass: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI Records/062-117290/062-117290 Volume 25/62-117290P25b.pdf

    [39] Thompson. J. Last Second in Dallas. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2023, p. 280-284. 

    *See also” “The Vela Incident Nuclear Test or Meteoroid? Documents Show Significant Disagreement with Presidential Panel Concerning Cause of September 22, 1979 Vela “Double-Flash” Detection.” National Security Archives, 5/5/2006. Available here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/index.htm

    *A good summary of government evidence proving a nuclear blast in the Vela Incident is available in: Report on the 1979 Vela Incident. Available here. [“(Investigative journalist Seymour) Hersh reports interviewing several members of the Nuclear Intelligence Panel (NIP), which had conducted their own investigation of the event. Those interviewed included its leader Donald M. Kerr, Jr. and eminent nuclear weapons program veteran Harold M. Agnew. The NIP members concluded unanimously that it was a definite nuclear test. Another member—Louis H. Roddis, Jr.—concluded that ‘the South African-Israeli test had taken place on a barge, or on one of the islands in the South Indian Ocean archipelago.’” [Hersh 1991; pg. 280-281. Available here.] He also cited internal CIA estimates made in 1979 and 1980 which concluded that it had been a nuclear test. “The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory conducted a comprehensive analysis, including the hydroacoustic data, and issued a 300-page report concluding that there had been a nuclear event near Prince Edward Island or Antarctica [Albright 1994b].”

    [41]Aguilar G, Wecht CH. AFTE Journal — Volume 47 Number 3 — Summer 2015, p. 132. On-line at: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs

  • Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 1

    Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 1

    Is Robert Wagner the New Paul Hoch? – Part 1

    Gary L. Aguilar, MD

    Introduction

    Paul Hoch is considered by some, and was recently described as the “doyen of serious JFK assassination research.”[1] That was the impression I and several colleagues had of him when we first waded into the mysteries of the President’s murder in the early 1990s. Having immersed himself in the case since the mid-1960s, Hoch struck us then-newbies as objective, knowledgeable, and logical. His essays in the 1976 book The Assassinations were astute, informative, and justly attacked aspects of the official narrative. Particularly the dishonesty of the FBI, and the Warren Commission’s bending its knee to the Bureau despite its members’ private, serious misgivings.[2] But while he skewered the Commission, he also rubbished some of the critics’ wilder notions.[3] But when, decades ago, he boosted Gerald Posner and J. Edgar Hoover’s confidant, John Lattimer, MD,[4] and when Hoch signaled his loyalty to the official narrative, our enthusiasm subsided. As he has faded from the scene in recent years, Hoch continues to wave the Commission’s flag. And now it seems a protégé and apparent heir has stepped forward to take up that éminence grise’s banner.  His name is Robert Wagner.

    The author of two books,[5] Wagner, à la Hoch, purports to navigate the dense thicket of assassination medical, legal, and forensics data with “just one agenda,” he says, “to work toward establishing the most reasonable explanation of the assassination.”[6] To do that, Wagner, who has no credentials in medicine, law, or forensics, applies the knowledge and wisdom he’s acquired from what he says are his “many years of experience” in “providing expert opinions at state and federal trials on business and economic topics.” Those years taught him that “the jury needs to be convinced that the expert is truly expert in the field in which he or she offers opinions” and that an “expert consistently grounds his or her opinions on a reasonable assessment of known facts and overall context.”[7]

    In his latest book, JFK Assassinated, Wagner puts his courtroom experience to work weighing the contrasting claims of Warren loyalists and skeptics. He, like Hoch before him, levels broadsides at both sides. Also, like Hoch, he concludes that the battle is done, the smoke has cleared, and the government’s case, though battered and bruised, still stands.

    Pro Warren jurors will cheer, and they have.[8] Skeptics will jeer, not without good reason. For our counselor observes in the breach the very rules he advocates in real trials. He’ll never convince a fair jury that the experts he cites – Larry Sturdivan on neurophysiology, radiology, etc., Parkland Hospital’s Robert McClelland, MD on Kennedy’s head wound, Michael O’Dell, and indirectly the Ramsey Panel, on acoustics, etc., really are the best ‘experts in the fields in which they offer opinions.’ Nor does he show that they ‘consistently ground their opinions on reasonable assessments of known facts and overall contexts.’  

    In this review, as if presented to a jury, I will argue that a whiff of insincerity wafts from the pages of his book. For it’s difficult to imagine he doesn’t realize how flawed and prejudiced the sources he trusts are.

    Wagner was warned that I might take notice of his book. “Paul Hoch may have been correct,” he writes, “when he told me that I had taken over from him to be Gary’s punching bag.” (p. 343) I take no joy in lacing up the gloves. But with this book, our counselor has willingly stepped into the ring and put his guard down. I wouldn’t be taking a swing if he hadn’t jutted out his glass jaw.

    While much more could be written, in this review I will narrow the focus to areas our consultant most emphasizes: Kennedy’s head wound and evidence from the autopsy photographs; his explanation of JFK’s lurch “back and to the left” after being struck in the head at Zapruder frame 313; the bona fides of Commission Exhibit #399, the so-called “Magic Bullet;” Kennedy’s X-ray findings; and, finally, the acoustics evidence.

    To begin with, Wagner’s handling of the President’s head injuries hints at an agenda. In brief, he sides with the House Select Committee’s (HSCA’s) dubious claim, namely that the Parkland doctors were mistaken about Kennedy’s head wound. It’s a fascinating story, but a little background for the jury is in order.

    Kennedy’s Fatal Head Wound

    After the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, Kennedy was rushed to an excellent major trauma center, Parkland Hospital. There, he was treated by a seasoned team of trauma surgeons. They said that Kennedy’s fatal wound was on the back, right side of his head. The words right “posterior,” “occipital,” “occipito-parietal,” etc., were repeatedly used. However, Kennedy’s autopsy photographs, which the HSCA said it had authenticated, showed no such rearward damage but only a wound toward the right front area of JFK’s head.[9] This posed a significant problem for the HSCA, which reinvestigated the assassination in the late 1970s.

    It announced that it had resolved the conflict. This is what it wrote in Volume 7, p. 37 of their volumes: 

    Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound … In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts … it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.”[10] (Emphasis added.)

    As we discovered almost 30 years ago from files declassified by the JFK Review Board–files that should never have been suppressed in the first place–the above HSCA claim was false. The autopsy witnesses did not corroborate the wounds depicted in the photographs. To the contrary, by word and diagram, they had overwhelmingly agreed with the Dallas doctors that JFK’s skull wound was rearward, on the right.[11]

    Wagner doesn’t bother with the autopsy witnesses who had more than ample viewing time, nor with most of the Texas trauma surgeons. Instead, he presents to the jury “[P]erhaps the most famous account” of JFK’s rearward wound, that of Dallas’s Robert McClelland, MD, and dissects the doctor over four pages (p. 206-10). Wagner begins by quoting McClelland’s Warren Commission testimony: “As I took the position at the head of the table … I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.” (6H33). 

    That was an innocent mistake, Wagner says, because, as the anesthesiologist M. T. “Pepper” Jenkins reported, JFK’s “emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenberg position.” (Fig. 1.) (This is a common and proper maneuver in such circumstances. It increases blood flow to the brain and heart during the CPR of a trauma patient. I used it myself in emergencies during my stint as a trauma surgeon at UCLA-Harbor General Hospital.) 

    Fig. 1 depicts what Wagner is talking about. Dr. McClelland couldn’t actually have seen the back of JFK’s head, he says, because the head of the gurney had been lowered. Wagner’s conclusion? “[I]t is indeed most reasonable to believe that he observed a blast wound more on the top-right of the president’s (sic) head than on the right rear.” (emphasis added)

    GAWagner1 Fig1

    Figure 1. Dr. McClelland stood at JFK’s head in Trauma Room One. He looked down at the President, who was in a head-downward, Trendelenburg position. The back of Kennedy’s head would not have been visible to the doctor, says Wagner. So, the doctor saw a wound in the top-right of JFK’s head and mistook it for a posterior one.

    Wagner extrapolates from McClelland’s “error” to the rest of the trauma team, and lands in HSCA country. The wound McClelland described “is simply not correctly located. Perhaps this explains why other witnesses located the large wound incorrectly. After all,” Wagner argues, “if Dr. McClelland, having several minutes to observe the wound, could get this wrong, why wouldn’t others do the same?” (p. 210) Put simply, Wagner says the HSCA was right when it concluded that “it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.” 

    Wagner’s selection and elimination of evidence is as breathtaking as it is unsurprising. He has, rather unreasonably, left out witnesses ‘who are truly experts in the field in which they offer opinions’: the two senior head wound experts who attended Kennedy at Parkland. Neurosurgery professors Kemp Clark, MD, the most senior treating surgeon, the man who pronounced JFK dead, and who spoke at a news conference on the day of the murder, as well as his neurosurgery professor colleague, Robert Grossman, MD.

    He doesn’t black them out completely, but Wagner keeps the lights down low. He tells the jury that Clark located JFK’s wound “mostly in the back-back side of the president’s head” (sic, p. 282). And he doesn’t even mention Grossman. For the benefit of Wagner’s jury, let’s turn the lights up. 

    Kemp Clark, MD – from the record: 

    • In an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland, Clark described the President’s skull wound as “in the occipital region of the skull… Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding… There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region … Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.” (WC–CE#392)
    • In a handwritten note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, “a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present … there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also …There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region … Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
    • He told the Warren Commission: “I then examined the wound in the back of the President’s head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.” (WC–V6:20)[12] 

    To push his theme that the Dallas doctors blew it, Wagner quotes, only to discount, what coauthor Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, and I wrote in Charles Crenshaw, MD’s second book, Trauma Room One: “it seems reasonable to suppose that not only did they have plenty of time to get a good look at Kennedy’s skull injuries, the Dallas doctors took responsible and appropriate steps to examine the skull wound before pronouncing the President dead.”[13] (p. 207) His riposte is that we were merely “inferring” that. We weren’t. 

    Which the jury would know if Wagner hadn’t knowingly cut what else we wrote on that very page: “Because the autopsy photographs show no wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, an explanation has been sought for how it was that so many Parkland physicians, including neurosurgeons, said they saw such a wound. The Boston Globe raised the issue. It reported that “some [Parkland] doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart….” The Globe immediately refuted that speculation: “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon] Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.”[14]  And make no mistake, that paper is an MSM outlet.

    We also pointed out that the ARRB’s Jeremy Gunn interviewed Grossman on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] (sic) together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”[15] Grossman has said the same thing over the years, most recently in the peer-reviewed journalNeurosurgery, where he wrote, “The President was lying supine, with his occiput on the stretcher. Kemp (Clark, MD) and I lifted his head to inspect the occiput….”[16] Grossman has repeated this numerous times,[17] which Wagner should know from work I’ve published that he discusses. [18] [19]

    That wasn’t the only credible expert Wagner omitted regarding JFK’s head injuries. Ironically, he also left out the professor of anesthesiology whom our consultant cited about Kennedy’s being positioned in Trendelenburg. In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77, “Pepper” Jenkins said that he “was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound (and) believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’ (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that “a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78, Jenkins said, “(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.” (As elsewhere documented, poor Pepper’s inconvenient early memory underwent a sudden patriotic turn 12 years later when queried by pro-Warren loyalist Gerald Posner, who was kind enough not to remind the good doctor, or his readers, of his prior, unhelpful statements.[20])

    Furthermore, Wanger ignores other credible, official witnesses who were not rushed, who had ample opportunity to see what Kennedy’s fatal wound looked like, and whose descriptions of Kennedy’s wounds are part of the official record: the witnesses at Kennedy’s autopsy. As Wecht and I wrote in the Crenshaw book, Bethesda Naval Hospital witnesses were closely aligned with the “mistaken” descriptions of the trauma surgeons in Texas. 

    A full recitation of the Bethesda witnesses is beyond the scope of this discussion. Curious members of the jury are invited to review the official accounts of these witnesses, which have been online, with hot-linked sources, for 30+ years.[21] We summarized the autopsy witnesses’ accounts in the following table that appears on page 286 of Crenshaw’s Trauma Room One. (Fig. 2)

    GAWagner1 Fig2

    Figure 2. Screenshot of page 186 from Charles Crenshaw, MD’s Trauma Room One.

    Put simply, regarding JFK’s head wound, Wagner has ignored the best-positioned and most expert witnesses. Instead, he featured McClelland, who, though “less expert,” somehow managed to describe the wound very much like the experts did. 

    He also didn’t think to mention something else Wecht and I wrote about in Trauma Room One — published research on the reliability of witnesses.

    There we wrote:  

    Though sometimes dismissed as unreliable, the reigning authority on eyewitness testimony, Elizabeth Loftus, claims witnesses are not always unreliable. In fact, there are circumstances in which their reliability is high.[22]In part, her evidence is based upon a 1971 Harvard Law Review study. Marshall, Marquis, and Oskamp found that when test subjects were asked about “salient” details of a complex and novel film clip scene they were shown, their accuracy rate was high: 78% to 98%. Even when a detail was not considered salient, as judged by the witnesses themselves, they were still accurate 60% of the time.[23]

    Factors that would degrade witness recall were not present at either Parkland or Bethesda. Absent those factors, the research of Marquis and Oskamp, and Loftus, shows that witnesses are very reliable.[24] If Wagner is going to argue witness error is the explanation, it’s his burden to explain how so many good witnesses improbably made the same mistake by agreeing JFK had a gaping skull wound involving the back of his head.[25] Wecht and I made this challenge in the very pages Wagner cites; he does not rise to that challenge. We also documented official accounts of numerous percipient government eyewitnesses saying that autopsy photographs they took, or processed, or saw, have vanished. (Available online.[26]) For the reasons stated above, he must know about it and conveniently ignores it.

    However, Wagner doesn’t overlook the autopsy images completely. Rather, he uses one of them to (wrongly) insist that Kennedy was not struck high, in the parietal bone, as the Clark Panel and the HSCA’s Forensic Panel had determined, but low, in the occipital bone.

    Pierre Finck, MD and Kennedy’s occipital entrance Wound

    His evidence is a confusing and controversial photograph that was taken during the autopsy, which he calls the “mystery photograph”(p. 254). Wagner says that this image was taken to “document specific – and not general – wounds.” That is, it’s specific proof that the fatal bullet struck JFK low in the rear of his head, in occipital bone, where the autopsy report put it. His evidence is Finck’s memo to General Blumberg, “I help(ed) the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital wound (external and internal aspects) as well as the wound in the back.” (sic, p. 254) “[T]he mystery photograph was taken,” our counselor says, “to document an occipital wound of entry, just as Finck told Blumberg.”  Fig. 3 is the image Wagner refers to. 

    It is clearly not the photo Wagner says it is, which the jury would know if Wagner hadn’t cut the rest of Finck’s memo. Here’s what else he wrote, “I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity …This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull … .” (emphasis added) [27] In other words, Finck said that no beveling was visible on the outside of the skull at the point of bullet penetration, the inshoot. But as anyone can see, “outside beveling” is plainly visible in this “mystery photograph.” (Fig. 3) (And it’s even more plainly visible in the original photo at the National Archives that I examined.) That makes this photo more likely one of an outshoot, not Wagner’s occipital inshoot. 

    GAWagner1 Fig3

    Figure 3. Bootleg copy of autopsy photograph of JFK’s skull wound. What it shows has been hotly contested for decades. 

    Wagner says it shows the entrance point of a bullet low in the back of JFK’s skull, in occipital bone, the area specified in the autopsy report. The red arrow points to a semicircular notch, the supposed entrance wound. But the “beveling” is on the outside of the skull, not the inside where Dr. Finck said it was. This, therefore, is not the photo of the entrance wound Finck meant.

    Were that not enough, Finck specifically rejected that this image was the occipital entry wound. 

    The HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD, asked Finck: “If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull … Did you ever see such a photograph?”

    Finck: “I don’t think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967… and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking [the photographer to take] these photographs. I don’t remember seeing those photographs.”[28]  (Emphasis added. If such images ever existed, they’ve disappeared. I elsewhere explore in detail the possibility that photographs are missing.[29]) 

    Kennedy’s lunge “back and to the left”

    Over several pages, Mr. Wagner discusses Kennedy’s pronounced left-rearward pitch after being struck in the head at Zapruder frames 312-313. He rejects the skeptics’ widely held view that Kennedy was driven backward by the momentum delivered to JFK’s skull from a shot fired from the right front. Instead, he maintains that either a “jet effect” or a “neuromuscular reaction,” or both, best explain(s) Kennedy’s rearward jolt.

    He scolds skeptics, writing, 

    I caution the CRC (critical research community, i.e., government skeptics) to be more circumspect about the back-and-to-the-left movement of the president (sic) after Z313. Frankly, the movement of the entire torso of the president (sic) against gravity because of a transiting bullet strike from the front (even hitting tangentially) (sic) seems to me as a layman, after studying expert views on this topic, at least as problematic as arguing for the jet effect or a neuromuscular reaction as an exclusive explanation of the president’s head and body movements after the fatal shot to the head. (p. 147)

    The theory that a “jet effect” explains Kennedy’s backward lunge was first put forward in 1976 in the American Journal of Physics by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Laureate in physics.[30] It has been heralded ever since, in recent years, by Nicholas Nalli, Ph.D. Wagner likely knows that Wecht and I dismantled Alvarez’s theory in two pieces published in the AFTE Journal,[31] as well as in two online articles rebutting Nicholas Nalli’s defense of “jet effect.”[32] Even Warren loyalists no longer believe it, including one of our counselor’s most trusted allies, former government employee Larry Sturdivan. He rubbished the Nobelist’s nonsense on the basis of government-funded, skull-shooting experiments that he was a part of in 1964. (See Fig. 5, below.)

    Describing those tests, he told the HSCA that the test skulls:

    …moved in the direction of the bullet … showing that the head of the President would probably go with the bullet … In fact, all 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet …  [33]

    He doubled down in his 2005 book, 

    “The question is,” he wrote, “Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.”[34]

     But that isn’t the half of it. 

    Per Sturdivan, had a jet effect rocked Kennedy back and to the left, his blasted cranial contents would have been jettisoned in the opposite direction, toward the right front. It’s the forward-moving ejecta that would have provided the rearward propulsion, had there been any. But they don’t. Instead, like JFK’s head, they, too, flew off to the left and rear, and for the same reason, the government’s skulls did: momentum transfer.

    Zapruder frame 313 shows a mist of debris just in front of JFK’s face, but no real “plume” of brain and bone matter flying forward from him. Exiting bone fragments are seen flying upward, and only very slightly forward. Not discernable in the two-dimensional frame is that those bone segments were also traveling leftward. They landed to JFK’s left, not to his right-front, which they would have if Oswald’s shot from the rear had blown out the right-front side of JFK’s skull. Moreover, the “debris field” from the Z frame 312-313 headshot was principally to the President’s left-rear. (See Fig. 4.)

    GAWagner1 Fig4

    Figure 4. Zapruder frame 313 and sketch of documented debris field from headshot at Z-313. (Courtesy, Doug Desalles, MD)

    Zapruder Frame 313 (left image) shows, in two dimensions, that there is a cloudy mist above and in front of JFK’s face. Exiting bone fragments are going mostly upward and, as discussed, to Kennedy’s left. They would have blown forward to JFK’s right if Oswald’s shot had entered the rear of Kennedy’s skull and exploded out of the right front. The debris field (image right) shows that most of the ejecta moved “back and to the left,” as did the President’s head. 

    The motor police riding to Kennedy’s left rear, and Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Sam Kinney, also to JFK’s left rear, were bespattered, as was the left side of the trunk of JFK’s limousine. The right side of the car’s trunk, and motor cops riding to JFK’s right rear, were not smeared. This suggests that the Z 312-313 shot was fired from Kennedy’s right front, the “grassy knoll,” not from Oswald’s right-rearward location.

    Our counselor might counter that the cloud of debris that is visible in front of JFK’s face in frame 313 proves Kennedy was shot from behind. But his trusted expert, Sturdivan, has pointed out what is known among forensics/ballistics cognoscenti: “A similar explosion would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction.”[35] Noted forensics/ballistics authority, Masaad Ayoob, has elaborated on this very point regarding Kennedy.

    “The explosion of the President’s head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film,” wrote Ayoob, “… is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet … If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above … the area of the grassy knoll.”[36]

    Ayoob’s point was demonstrated in government duplication tests that our counsel’s trusted ally, Sturdivan, ran for the Warren Commission in 1964. These images were taken from a high-speed film of skull-shooting experiments. (Fig. 5)

    GAWagner1 Fig5

    Figure 5. High-speed film images from Biophysics Lab skull shooting tests conducted for the Warren Commission in 1964. 

    Note that while the bullet entered the back of the skull, the initial egress of debris is thrown rearward, exiting through the inshoot in the occiput. The later frames show that as much material flies back out of the entry point as from the area of exit in the front. As the skull ruptures, the skull moves swiftly away from the shooter, just as Kennedy’s did in Dealey Plaza. (Debris is not seen exiting the rear of Kennedy’s skull in the Zapruder film.)

    NEUROMUSCULAR  REACTION

    So, if not “jet effect,” what of “neuromuscular reaction” as an explanation for JFK’s lunge backward? Wagner quotes in extenso what I’ve written about that theory. I won’t repeat all of it here, but some key points bear mention. 

    First, there are two known types of “neuromuscular reactions” that may be seen in brain injuries or following head trauma: decorticate and decerebrate. Their features are well known in the medical/scientific community. It is known that they do not manifest in split seconds, as Kennedy’s reactions did. From the web, below are images depicting and contrasting decerebrate and decorticate positions (Fig. 6), images Wagner also used in his book (p. 135). JFK assumed neither posture in reaction to the headshot. 

    GAWagner1 Fig6

    Figure 6. Decorticate vs. Decerebrate Postures

    Decorticate posture results from damage to one or both corticospinal tracks. The upper arms are adducted, and the forearms flexed, with the wrists and fingers flexed on the chest. The legs are stiffly extended and internally rotated with plantar flexion of the feet.

    Decerebrate posture results from damage to the upper brain stem. The upper arms are adducted, and the forearms arms are extended, with the wrists pronated and the fingers flexed. The legs are stiffly extended, with plantar flexion of the feet.

    The Goat Experiment

    However, there is another, more instantaneous “neurospasm” that has been demonstrated experimentally in animals. Wagner’s go-to neurophysiology authority, Sturdivan, described and demonstrated this reaction – a split-second neurospastic response that he likened to the President’s response to the headshot at Z-312-313.[37] His evidence is a goat’s reaction to being shot through the head with a .30 caliber bullet, as shown in a movie produced by Edgewood Arsenal.

    As the high-speed film rolled, Sturdivan described the action to the HSCA: “…the back legs go out under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back (sic) arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome the those of the abdomen. That’s it.”[38]

    In his book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan reproduced a series of still photographs from the experiment that he said demonstrated the goat’s evanescent, “JFK-like” reaction to being shot in the head. Sturdivan writes, “His (the goat’s) back arches, his head is thrown up and back, and his legs straighten and stiffen for an instant before he collapses back into his previous flaccid state.”[39] (Fig. 7)

    GAWagner1 Fig7

    Figure 7. Images of a goat being shot in the head, per Larry Sturdivan. At left, image of a goat taken before being shot in the head. At right, the goat’s immediate reaction to being shot. His back arches, his upper and lower limbs splay outward and backward. (Unlike JFK’s, the goat’s head does not explode.)

    Elaborating to the HSCA, Mr. Sturdivan, who has no credentials in medicine, neurology, neurophysiology, etc., drew the Dealey Plaza parallel:

    …since all (of JFK’s) motor nerves were stimulated at the same time, then every muscle in the body would be activated at the same time. Now, in an arm, for instance, this would have activated the biceps muscle, but it would have also activated the triceps muscle, which, being more powerful, would have straightened the arm out (occurs in “decerebrate”). With leg muscles, the large muscles in the back of the leg are more powerful than those in the front, and, therefore, the leg would move backward (occurs both in “decerebrate” and “decorticate” postures). The muscles in the back of the trunk (the “extensor” muscles) are much stronger than the abdominals, and, therefore, the body would arch backward.[40]

    In a broadcast interview, Sturdivan demonstrated how he said Kennedy reacted to the fatal shot. (Fig. 8.)

    GAWagner1 Fig8

    Figure 8. Arching his back and head rearward, and his upper arms upward, in a filmed interview, Sturdivan purports to mimic JFK’s neurophysical reaction to the headshot.[41]

    Not only was Sturdivan’s posture one that JFK never remotely manifested, but his arms weren’t ‘straightened out’ as he testified they should have been, as the goat’s forelegs were. (Fig. 9)

    The jury can easily see that Mr. Sturdivan’s posture resembles neither of the known types of “neuromuscular reactions” depicted in Wagner’s book (Fig. 6), nor that of the goat’s response. (Fig. 7) All are unlike JFK’s actual reaction to his fatal head injury. (Fig. 9)

    GAWagner1 Fig9

    Figure 9. Zapruder frame 230, Kennedy is reacting to the first shot. His elbows are raised and abducted away from his body. His wrists are flexed inward across his mouth and neck. In Z frame 312, 1/18th second before his head explodes, JFK’s head is bent forward and to the left.

    In Z frame 320, less than ½ second later, it’s his head that has jolted backward, not his back, which has not arched backward à la Sturdivan, but instead follows after his driven skull. His right arm neither flexes inward, “decorticate-style,” nor straightens out, “decerebrate-style,” but instead falls limply toward the President’s lap. Kennedy’s reactions bear no resemblance to Mr. Sturdivan’s demonstration (Fig. 8), nor to any known “neuromuscular” reaction. (Fig.8)

    In sum, JFK’s reaction to the headshot at Z 312-313 can’t be explained by a “jet effect,” and it fails the physiological criteria of any kind of “neuromuscular” reaction.[42]

    Our counselor would have done himself and the jury a favor if he had looked at the Z film himself and not taken an anti-conspiracy activist’s word for what is in it.

    More Problems with Sturdivan

    Another counter to inexpert Sturdivan’s theory is that real neuromuscular reactions are not evanescent; they last a while. “Such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington described,” the HSCA’s Forensic Panel correctly noted, “usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brainstem and spinal cord.”[43] Not only was Kennedy’s backward jolt immediate, it was not sustained.

    In the frames following Z-327, 7/10ths seconds after the headshot, JFK’s head starts driving forward. His back then follows along after it, but at a slower rate than his skull moves, which advances at as fast a rate, or faster, than his head flew backward after Zapruder frame 313.[44] Kennedy’s back thus “flexed” forward the same way it had “arched” backward: it didn’t itself flex or arch. It instead followed JFK’s head in both directions: backward after Z-313, and forward after Z-327. This is at a time when our counselor’s theory would have it that the President’s back should have been arching backward. (Fig. 10.) 

    In addition, Wagner argues that Kennedy’s backward-moving head could not have moved JFK’s torso backward; that it could not have ‘lifted him against gravity.’ Unfortunately for our counselor, the proof that it did is right in the Zapruder film in the frames following Z-327: Kennedy’s head flies forward, and his torso is visibly ‘lifted against gravity’ in the same, now forward direction. Obviously, it wasn’t the bullet itself that did all that; it was the left rearward lunge of his ~11 lb. head that tugged his upper body backward after Z-313, and then forward after Z-321.

    GAWagner1 Fig10

    Figure 10. Left: frame 320, 7/18th seconds after being struck in the head, Kennedy’s head has flown backward; his back and torso follow. At approximately frame 321, his head starts reversing direction and moving forward. 

    Right: frame 338, 17/18th seconds later, Kennedy’s head has moved far forward, and his back and torso have been “lifted against gravity” in a forward direction.

    Momentum Transfer vs. Neuromuscular Reaction vs. Momentum Transfer

    It’s clear that “jet effect” and/or “neuromuscular reaction” simply can’t explain Kennedy’s rearward lunge. The most reasonable explanation for it is momentum transfer from a bullet striking from the right front. This is consistent with the results of the Biophysics Lab’s experiments in which all the shot skulls moved in the direction of bullet travel; consistent with the fact debris from the headshot was thrown to JFK’s left rear; consistent with the observation of several witnesses who saw smoke floating across Dealey Plaza from the grassy knoll; consistent with the impressions of the 21 cops in Dealey Plaza who suspected a grassy knoll shot;[45]and it perfectly fits the acoustics evidence. 

    Click here to read part 2.

    ________________________________________

    Footnotes

    [1] Sayre, PaulThe Secrets of the JFK Assassination Archive – How a dogged journalist proved that the CIA lied about Oswald and Cuba — and spent decades covering it upNew York Magazine, 11/9/23. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jfk-assassination-documents-national-archives.html

    [2] Hoch, Paul. “Ford, Jaworski, and the National Security Cover-Up.” In Scott P., Hoch, P. Stetler, R. The Assassiations – Dallas and Beyond. New York. Vintage Books, 1976, 136 ff.

    [4] John Lattimer, MD was J. Edgar Hoover’s urologist. In an ARRB interview, Parkland’s Paul Peters, MD revealed that Hoover let Lattimer privately see JFK’s restricted autopsy photographs. See ARRB transcript with Jeremy Gunn, p. 39-43: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Lattimer+and+Hoover+by+P.+Peters/FMfcgzGmtXDbzzLjcFwwJnRlMcnMsWpp?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

    [5] Wagner, R. The Assassination of JFK: Perspectives Half a Century Later, Dog Ear Publishing2016, and JFK Assassisnated – In the Courtroom Debating the Critical Research Community. Mill City Press, 2023.

    [6] Wagner, R. JFK Assassisnated – In the Courtroom Debating the Critical Research Community. Mill City Press, 2023, p. 13.

    [7] Wagner, R. JFK Assassisnated – In the Courtroom Debating the Critical Research Community. Mill City Press, 2023, p. 6.

    [9] Significant question exists whether the HSCA had actually authenticated Kennedy’s autopsy photographs. As discussed elsewhere, the HSCA determined that extant images were not taken by camera that was allegedly used to take those photographs. See:  Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham. HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG, Part V: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

    [11] Aguilar G, Cunningham K. HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG, part V:  The ‘Last’ Investigation – The House Select Committee on Assassinations. https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm#_ednref273

    [12] More of Dr. Clark’s statements are available on line, here: http://assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

    [13] Crenshaw, C A. Trauma Room One. New York: Paraview Press, 2001, p. 207.

    [14] Bradlee, Ben. “Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists.” Boston Globe, 6/21/81, p. A-23. https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/full-articles/boston-globe

    [15] ARRB MD #185. ARRB interview with Dr. Robert G. Grossman, 3/21/97.

    [16] Sullivan, D, Faccio, R, Levy ML, Grossman, RG. THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: A NEUROFORENSIC ANALYSIS—PART 1: A NEUROSURGEON’S PREVIOUSLY UNDOCUMENTED EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS OFNOVEMBER 22, 1963. Neurosurgery. VOLUME 53 | NUMBER 5 | NOVEMBER 2003, p. 1023.

    [17] Dr. Robert Grossman’s Reaction to JFK Autopsy Photo (March 5, 1981). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVTmhWdmuRo#:~:text=Full,%20verbatim,%20taped%20conversation  Listen starting at 4 min, 10 second mark. At and after the 14 minute mark, Grossman said that Clar k would be a better source than he because Clark picked up Kennedy’s head.

    [18] Roylance, Roy. Neurosurgeon recalls examining the dying JFK. Baltimore Sun, 11/22/2003. Republished by “Desert News.”https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/22/19797270/neurosurgeon-recalls-examining-the-dying-jfk/#:~:text=For%20Dr.%20Robert%20G.%20Grossman,%20this%20classic

    [20] See: Aguilar, G. JOHN F. KENNEDY’S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT. http://assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

    [21] Aguilar, G. JOHN F. KENNEDY’S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT http://assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm#:~:text=In%20a%20speech%20to%20a%20gathering%20of%20Urologists

    [22] Elizabeth F. Loftus. Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996, p, 25 – 28.

    [23] Loftus, Elizabeth F. Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 25 – 26.  “Items that were highest of all in salience (“salience” being determined by the witnesses themselves) received accuracy and completeness scores of 98. Those that were lowest in salience received scores below 70.” 

    Note that an item judged not to be salient at all, i.e. “Salience category 0.00,” was still accurately recounted 61% of the time. See also the study to which Loftus refers, Marshall, J, Marquis, KH, Oskamp, S. Effects of kind of question and atmosphere of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony.  Harvard Law Review, Vol.84:1620 – 1643, 1971.

    [24] Elizabeth Loftus, James M. Doyle. Eyewitness Testomony: Civil and Criminal, Second Edition. Charlottesville: The Michie Company, 1992.

    [25] Crenshaw, C A. Trauma Room One. New York: Paraview Press, 2001, p. 211-2.

    [27] ARRB MD 28 – Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65) file:///Users/gabrielaguilarmd/Downloads/mffpdf_609.pdf

    [28] HSCA testimony of Pierre Finck, MD. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

    [29] See: Aguilar G, Cunningham K. HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG, part V:  The ‘Last’ Investigation – The House Select Committee on Assassinations. https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm#_ednref273

    [30] Alvarez L, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,” American Journal of Physics Vol. 44, No. 9, p. 817. September, 1976. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Alvarez%20Luis%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf

    [31] Both of the articles published by the AFTE Journal have been available on line since 2016. They are posted in an essay: Aguilar, G. NOVA’s Cold Case: JFK – the Junk Science Behind PBS’s Recent Foray into the Crime of the Century.    https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs

    [32] Aguilar, G, Wecht, CH. Peer Reviewed” Medical/Scientific Journalism Has Been Corrupted by Warren Commission Apologists – Part 1.  https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists

    Aguilar, G. Wecht, CH. Nicholas Nalli and the JFK Case, Part 2 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/nicholas-nalli-and-the-jfk-case-part-2

    [33] House Select Committee on Assassinations testimony of Larry Sturdivan, 8 September, 1978. 1H404. On-line at http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0204b.htm

    [34] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 162.

    [35] Sturdivan, L. JFK Myths. St. Paul, MD: Paragon House, 2005, p. 170.

    [36] Ayoob, M. The JFK Assassination: A Shooter’s Eye View. American Handgunner, March/April, 1993, p 98.

    [37] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 170.

    [39] Sturdivan, L M., “The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination,” Paragon House, St. Paul, MD (2005), pp. 164, 166.

    [42] Individual Zapruder frames available on-line at: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ . A good video of Zapruder’s film is available, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

    [44] Precise measurements of this forward motion were first tabulated by Josiah Thompson in 1967. See table on page 274, in: Thompson J, Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967.

    [45] Morley, Jeff. “21 JFK cops who suspected a grassy knoll shot.”  https://jfkfacts.org/21-jfk-cops-who-heard-a-grassy-knoll-shot/

  • The Protected JFK Files

    The Protected JFK Files

    The Protected JFK Files

    With Donald Trump re-assuming the Presidency in January, it is time to ask the question: What will or what can President Trump do about the 3,600 protected JFK assassination records?  

    I use the word “protected” for a reason.  The ARRB had the authority under the JFK Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act) to postpone the release of certain assassination records under very specific standards in the JFK Act.  The ARRB made specific postponement and release decisions on each record that agencies sought to protect after 1998 when the ARRB’s work was done.  Agencies do not have the right to protect those records in perpetuity, which is what we are facing today.  This article will dissect the problem and what Trump and Congress can do about it.  We will also discuss what information is likely found in the remaining protected records, which sheds significant light on WHY agencies are fighting so hard to maintain secrecy.  

    What will President Trump do?  We do not know for sure.  He has recently pledged to resist pressure from agencies and authorize the release of the remaining withheld records.  Trump has Robert Kennedy, Jr. in his cabinet, who is no doubt committed to this effort.  RFK, Jr. believes that the CIA is responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.  I agree, which is discussed in detail below.  RFK, Jr.’s commitment is so serious that he is seeking to have Trump appoint his daughter-in-law as the new CIA Deputy Director.  That might rattle some cages in Langley.  

    But in reality, all the CIA has to do is abide by the final decisions that the ARRB already made when it had the chance to negotiate with the ARRB on the final release date. In no event was any record to be withheld past October 26, 2017 under the clear language in the JFK Act.  More than 7 years later, and 61 years after the JFK assassination, the agencies are still fighting harder than ever on this issue.  The bottom line is that agencies, chiefly the CIA, cling to a fierce belief that it has the unrestricted power to break the law.  The belief it has the authority to continue dictating to the President and to Congress the information that can be shared with the American public.  That has to change, and the release of the protected JFK records would be a major step toward change in this power struggle on secrecy and transparency.  

    Understanding the Problem

    Before we talk about the solutions that are available to President Trump and Congress, it is important to look at the reason for this problem.  To examine the answer to the questions: Why is the CIA still willing to break the JFK Act and ignore the ARRB’s final decisions?  Why did the CIA pressure both Presidents Trump and Biden to do the same between 2017 and today?  I believe the answers lie with Lee Harvey Oswald and the 61-year cover up of his known assignments and activities and how they probably explain what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.  At the very least, the protected records show that the CIA created a false identity for Oswald, used that to its advantage before and after the assassination, and has covered that up for 61 years.

    Today, we have a very good idea of what information is likely in the CIA’s protected records, and only full public disclosure of those records can prove otherwise.  Here is what we know today, and there is no legitimate dispute about it.

    We know that the CIA sponsored an operation known as AMSPELL, which was designed to infiltrate leftist organizations in the U.S. that supported Castro’s regime in Cuba.  The AMSPELL network included the DRE–Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil–an anti-Castro organization that operated in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Its titular head was Carlos Bringuier, and according to Howard Hunt’s HSCA testimony, it was originated by David Phillips.

    We know that the AMSPELL/DRE network had direct contact and involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in August of 1963.  Those activities resulted in a public and, in all likelihood, a staged altercation with Oswald, leading to his arrest.  The result being that Oswald was detained in jail and paid a fine for receiving a punch from Bringuier.

    We know also about operation AMSANTA, a joint FBI/CIA program designed to place willing Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) members into Cuba to collect intelligence.  We also know that Oswald met at length with the FBI after his arrest—the visit lasted for well over an hour–while in police custody in New Orleans.

    After Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans, the DRE leaders arranged for Oswald to appear on local TV and radio stations, where he flashed his fake Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) credentials and talked about his beliefs as a “pro-Castro Marxist”.  The FPCC was the exact organization that these intelligence operations—FBI, CIA, DRE– were targeting.  And Oswald was in the middle of it all.

    The evidence strongly indicates that a CIA operation was used weeks later in Mexico City. Done to further advance the legend that Oswald was a “Castro patriot” desperately seeking entry into Cuba.  A bit over six weeks later, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas by the alleged “lone assassin” Oswald.  

    In Chapter Two of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, Oswald’s intelligence connections are discussed at length.  To put it mildly, he was no “lone nut” assassin.

    We know that within hours of the assassination on November 22nd, CBS broadcasted to the world Oswald’s radio and TV interviews from New Orleans, where he discussed his “work” with the FPCC and claimed to be a “Marxist”.  Where did CBS get all of this information on Oswald so suddenly?  Was it through the CIA’s AMSPELL/DRE network?   

    We know of a project  known as “Operation Northwoods”, a Pentagon scheme designed to provoke war with Cuba by using a “spectacular” act of violence in the United States, utilizing covert CIA personnel to arrange for the blame to fall on Casto.  Creating pretext and public support for the President to finally invade Cuba.  Is this not similar to what happened in Dallas on November 22?  With Oswald, the Castro sympathizer, in perfect position to take the immediate blame?  Thus provoking an invasion of Cuba.

    A complete release of the withheld JFK assassination files would likely disprove the above.  Yes, the JFK Act authorized agencies to request continued withholding of sensitive assassination records that could or would disclose an intelligence “source or method.”  Those requests (thousands of them) were made to the ARRB in the 1990’s, and the ARRB was the arbiter.  Only the President had authority to continue postponement if there was still clear and convincing evidence that a record, if disclosed publicly, could still harm a current intelligence source and method.   

    But back to the ultimate problem today.  It is already known that agencies were using operations like AMSPELL and AMSANTA to infiltrate the FPCC.  It is already known that the AMSPELL/DRE network had direct and public involvement with Oswald in New Orleans.   It is already known that CIA officer George Joannides managed the AMSPELL operation in New Orleans that utilized Oswald’s fake FPCC credentials.  We already know about the CIA operation in Mexico City involving Oswald (or more likely an imposter).  Is then the AMSPELL/DRE operation involving Oswald and the FPCC still a current source and method?  No.

    There is an undeniable conclusion here.  The only plausible reason for the intelligence agencies to fight tooth and nail on the remaining withheld records is that all information on Oswald, AMSPELL, AMSANTA and Mexico City would finally be public.  And those intelligence operations played a part in what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas. 

    Solutions for Trump and Congress

    In November, I had the chance to speak at the CAPA conference in Dallas on the legal status of this case.  I had the pleasure of presenting with Larry Schnapf and Jacob Hornberger.  The Mary Ferrell Foundation is still working through its lawsuit seeking compliance with the JFK Act.  Of course, the Department of Justice lawyers are still fighting very hard to confuse the Ninth Circuit in California regarding the scope and purpose of the JFK Act.  The Appellate Court will ultimately decide whether that case will change the momentum on this historic issue.

    However, regardless of what happens with that lawsuit, I believe that President Trump and Congress can independently solve the problem without the need for more lengthy lawsuits.

    New ARRB

    Representatives in Congress are working on new legislation that would create an extension of the JFK Act.  If successful, this legislation would create a new independent panel that would finish the historical work of the ARRB from the 1990’s.  The new legislation should reiterate that the ARRB was the final arbiter on postponements and that only the President has the authority to make record-specific determinations on which assassination records, if any, still pose an identifiable harm to a current person or a current source or method of the agencies.  That is what the JFK Act of 1992 already says!  

    An “ARRB 2.0” would start by locating and reviewing all of the final decisions made by the ARRB in the 1990’s and ensure that agencies have complied with those postponement and release decisions.  A new ARRB should also be empowered to locate any assassination records that are still withheld entirely by agencies or not even archived at NARA as they are required to be.  The new ARRB should then have authority to make record-specific final decisions on those records, similar to what the ARRB did 30 years ago.

    In concert with this, Congress this time can actually use its oversight authority to ensure that the agencies are fully cooperating with the new ARRB.  To ensure that the President exercises proper authority over executive branch records that agencies still wish to protect.  And in the rarest of cases where an agency could still seek protection on a record or group of records, the President must make a record-specific determination on postponement under the standards of the JFK Act, as extended by Congress now.  Again, congressional oversight committees had that authority in the original JFK Act of 1992.  They did not utilize it.

    President Donald Trump

    The problem with new legislation is that we do not know if it will succeed in Washington,  or if it does, how long it will take to enact.    Trump, however, can take immediate action and has pledged to do so when he resumes office.  He can rescind President Biden’s executive orders that made the issue worse (if that was even possible).  Biden’s “Transparency Plans” practically encouraged continued secrecy from the agencies and did not actually require transparency.

    Trump also needs to address what happened in 2017 when he authorized delays on the assassination records, which eventually led to Biden’s orders.  What happened there?  Trump himself has hinted at it in a recent interview with Joe Rogan.  He privately told trusted advisor Andrew Napolitano that he wanted to release the records when he was President but was under severe pressure from agencies (namely the CIA and director Mike Pompeo) not to do so.  Trump was misled on what the JFK Act required, and he was convinced that the remaining protected records were still “too sensitive” to release.  Too sensitive in terms of who Oswald actually was and what he was doing?  Or too sensitive for the CIA to explain in terms of the 60-year cover up of the operations involving Oswald and how they resulted in Dallas?

    Trump can also address the faulty legal advice he received from the DOJ at the eleventh hour in 2017, which essentially re-wrote the JFK Act without legal authority and set the stage for more secrecy and postponements.  The DOJ is using that same legal strategy in the aforementioned lawsuit.    A new attorney general can ensure that the JFK Act is properly interpreted and that its purpose and intent is finally carried out.  

    Finally, there is talk about Trump authorizing a new Presidential Commission to investigate assassinations.  I support this as well.  No doubt this Presidential Commission would not be another Warren Commission that was set up by President Johnson  and J. Edgar Hoover to cover up both Oswald and his known domestic intelligence connections.  It could lead to a new investigation of the JFK case, the RFK case and the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania on Trump himself.

    Regardless, there is little doubt that Trump can have success on this issue if he orders compliance with the JFK Act of 1992, as currently written, and works with Congress on solutions it can provide.  If he strikes the appropriate balance of following the JFK Act, while still protecting actual living persons and current sources and methods.  

    Conclusion

    The agencies will not give up the fight.  That is clear. We have discussed solutions.  Perhaps the final withheld JFK records will not show much at all and that we are simply dealing with stubbornness and belief from agencies that they are above the law.  Logic certainly dictates otherwise.  All signs point to the withheld records containing a lot more information on Oswald and his assignments and activities in New Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas.  And that various components of the CIA were sponsoring or guiding Oswald’s activities.  Those records probably will not show a direct connection to the actual assassination operation in Dallas–but do they even need to at this point?  We already know that the Joint Chiefs and the CIA-Mafia apparatus were itching to use a “Northwoods” type event to spark an invasion of Cuba.  The intelligence operations connected to Oswald in New Orleans and Mexico City were probably the final piece to that plan.  Regardless, it is time to let the records, already reviewed with scrutiny by the ARRB in the 1990’s, speak for themselves. 

  • A Death from the First Generation

    A Death from the First Generation

    A Death from the First Generation

    Immie Feldman died on December 11th, 2024, at the age of 97. She was the widow of Harold Feldman, one of the first generation Warren Report critics.

    Immie, whose given name was Irma, had a key, if peripheral, role in one of the earliest independent investigations into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. These investigations began due to plainly spurious official pronouncements.

    In the summer of 1964, several months before publication of the Warren Report, Immie Feldman accompanied her husband Harold and then-brother-in-law Vincent Salandria to Dallas. They went there on behalf of pioneering critic Mark Lane, whose Citizens Committee of Inquiry had recruited a handful of amateur but highly capable investigators.

    Just before they left, Lane’s assistant mailed Salandria a packet with suggested witness questions. “We didn’t frame any questions for the cops because of the accessibility problem,” she said in her cover letter. “If you do find one drunk in a bar somewhere or hanging over the edge of a precipice by his big toe, I’m sure you’ll know what to ask him…

    “We’ll be eagerly and anxiously awaiting the results of your incursion behind enemy lines!”

    One of the results was a remarkable article written by Harold Feldman. “The Unsinkable Marguerite Oswald,” published in The Realist in September, is an insightful and sympathetic profile of the alleged assassin’s mother. It revealed then-shocking details about the experiences of certain witnesses.

    Feldman’s article contrasted sharply with a book that appeared a year or so later. Jean Stafford’s A Mother in History fully supported the lone-nut scenario, and thus met with favorable response from the mainstream media. Newsweek magazine’s coverage of the book so incensed Immie Feldman that she wrote a letter to the editor, which the magazine published on March 28, 1966.

    Many years later I conducted a telephone interview with Immie Feldman. At the time, I was talking to as many of the earliest Warren Commission critics as I could. What follows is an edited transcript.

     

    Immie Feldman Interview, Feb 16, 2001

    JK.     If you’re ready, we can just plunge right into it.

    IF.     Okay.

    JK.     You accompanied Vince and Harold to Dallas that summer…

    IF.     That’s correct.

    JK.     I wonder if you had any concerns about that. Or if you – were you looking forward to it, or just along for the ride…?

    IF      Well I was looking forward to it as an adventure. I was interested in the whole thing about it not being Oswald acting alone. And I, you know, I wanted to find out what they could find out…we were anxious to get to Dallas. And we had driven straight through, without stopping to – you know, except for gasoline, and bathroom stops. And eating, yeah. But we, Harold and Vince, and I think you say that in your [questions] – yes, you do – they took turns driving. And we just went right through.

    JK.     Okay. Let’s see, what next do we have? Your initial impressions of Marguerite Oswald. Do you remember that? First meeting her?

    IF.     Yeah, I don’t know what I expected. And so I’m not recalling…but she seemed like a very nice woman. She was very pleasant to us. She seemed, in a way, proud of her son. And she was…I don’t know, it seems like she was, may have been kind of like a distant mother. Do you know what I mean?

    JK.     Not a really warm person?

    IF.     Right, right. What else do I remember about her? She was hospitable to us. And I said we spent the night there, and Vince spent the other nights there also. And she was worried about – that people seemed to be circling her place that she lived, with an automobile that she kept recognizing. And I think that at one time there may have been a van parked in front of her place, that she thought maybe had listening devices or something. And she was constantly on the phone calling the Warren Commission to give them things that she thought were leads or clues. And mostly I think they just thought of her as being a nuisance.

    JK.     Mm-hmm.

    IF.     I think she was rather shabbily treated by people, especially the Council of Churches [in Dallas] that were collecting money [for Tippit’s widow]. And I think I wrote to you about that in my letter, that they received some money that was earmarked for her, and they returned it because they weren’t collecting money for the mother of a murderer.

    JK.     Mm-hmm.

    IF.     Of course, that was very hurtful to her. As naturally, it would be.

    JK.     Harold wrote about, in his article on Marguerite, about going to Helen Markham’s house. Or apartment, I guess it was.

    IF.     Apartment, yes.

    JK.     And Marguerite went with you, correct? It was all four of you?

    IF.     Yes, yes.

    JK.     And, do you recall, do you have recollections of that? I guess you went there a couple of times.

    IF.     Yes, we did go there a couple of times. And I don’t know why I don’t have, you know, any strong recollections there. Because I was kind of, you know, like in the background, and Vince and Harold were the ones that were proceeding with asking questions and trying to get information.

    JK.     Do you remember how you, or they, were received by – did Mrs. Markham seem at all suspicious or unwilling to talk?

    IF.     That, I’m sorry, I don’t recall.

    JK.     Okay. Now, were you with them when, I guess you went initially and she talked for a few minutes, and she was babysitting, I guess it was her granddaughter, and she said, ‘Come back later,’ and you went back a few hours later? And at that time, her husband had come home, and I – that’s when, according to Harold’s article, as you pulled up the second time, you saw, he saw, a few police cars pull away. And they apparently had been threatened by the Dallas police.

    IF.     By the police, mm-hmm.

    JK.     Do you remember that? Vince said something, I think I quoted him, he said to the effect, of having never seen anyone so scared before, and that their teeth were actually chattering. And I think the teeth chattering, I think that Harold mentioned that in his article, too.

    IF.     Yes, I do recall that the Markhams were thoroughly frightened. And apparently, you know, they were threatened.

    JK.     Do you recall noticing that the second time? When you came back a few hours later? As opposed to the first visit earlier in the day?

    IF.     Yes, it was definitely a different atmosphere the second time.

    JK.     Yeah. Okay. That pretty much is what Harold wrote.

    IF.     Yes, and of course, his recollection would have been much closer to the time that it happened.

    JK.     Yeah. Was he keeping notes?

    IF.     Both Harold and Vince did of course take notes, and Vince had brought down an IBM typewriter, and a small copier, so that they were, you know, every night…

    JK.     Busy?

    IF.     Yeah…

    JK.     Taking notes, transcribing…?

    IF.     Making notes, and getting things together. Because, I think, if I remember correctly, the original plan was that we go down and get information for Mark Lane. And then that was not, I don’t think he used that information, and Vince and Harold just used it for their own things that they wrote.

    JK.     Uh, let’s see. Going back earlier, to that first article that was in The Nation, ‘Oswald and the FBI.’ Do you have any memory of Harold becoming aware that the article had prompted, as it did, as I’m sure you’re aware, that secret meeting of the Warren Commission?

    IF.     Yes.

    JK.     And what did he think of that?

    IF.     I was, myself, very apprehensive, because I was wondering you know, what is this going to mean? What kind of difficulties would it make for us?

    JK.     You mean at the time it was first published?

    IF.     Yeah. And…I mean, I don’t know what else to elaborate on that. I was concerned if it would prove to be, make some difficulties in our lives.

    JK.     Yeah, I understand exactly what you mean. It, if you ever had the feeling you were messing with something that would get you in over your head, so to speak?

    IF.     Yes, but still I felt that we had to, Harold and Vince had to sort of, you know, work at what they thought was the truth. But it was, it was, you know. It was scary.

    JK.     Did – you may know – and I’m sure Harold must have seen the – that Gerald Ford wrote about that, mentioned him specifically, in his book. Do you have any memory of Harold thinking one way or another about that? Did he feel like he’d accomplished what he – he got the attention of some…

    IF.     Yeah, he got the attention, and he was in that book that was out there for – we have a copy of the book, or my son Vincent has a copy of the book. And it was, you know, it made an impact. Something that was a little thorn in their sides, apparently.

    JK.     After – I’m not sure exactly how many articles he wrote that were directly related to that case. But there were I think just four or five, is that about right?

    IF.     I think so.

    JK.     The last one that I think, chronologically, was the one about 51 Witnesses on the grassy knoll…?

    IF.     Witnesses on the grassy knoll, right.

    JK.     Which I think was about 1965. And he seems to have dropped out after that. But I’m sure he must have maintained an interest over the years.

    IF.     He maintained an interest over the years. He was, at that time, taking some post-graduate courses, and then in 1966 our son was born… [but] he always maintained an interest, but not actively. And he had a psychoanalytic practice, and he kept very busy. And so he didn’t have the time. He had, other things came into his life, so it wasn’t something that was all-engrossing.

    JK.     Okay. I have one more question, and feel free to not answer it, because I don’t know if I’m getting too personal here. But I was wondering whether Harold’s death was sudden and unexpected? Or was he ill for a time?

    IF.     It was rather sudden. He had had, ten years before he passed away, he had a heart attack and a stroke. And he had fully recovered from it and was able to continue his practice, and teach in this school of psychoanalytic studies here in Philadelphia, and led a very active and normal life. And then in August of ’86, he became ill, and they thought it was a stomach inflammation from medications he was taking. And it turned out to be, it was diagnosed as liver cancer, but then it proved to have come from the pancreas. And he was in the hospital on Wednesday, they made the – he went in the hospital on the weekend, and on Wednesday they made the diagnosis. And the doctor told me that he probably had six months to live. And he died that Friday.

    JK.     Wow.

    IF.     So that was quite a shock. Because he thought that he would be able to tie up some loose ends with the people he had in treatment. And as you can imagine, the shock for all of us, and for his patients, to have this happen this suddenly. 

    JK.     I don’t mean to pry.

    IF.     Sure. No, that’s okay.

    JK.     Okay. Well that’s about all I have this morning. I do appreciate your taking the time to talk to me.

    IF.     If there’s anything I can, you know, add, I’m happy to do it.

    JK.     Okay. Well thank you very much!

    IF.     Okay, you’re quite welcome.

    JK.     I’ll talk to you later.

    IF.     Okay. Bye-bye.

    With Harold Feldman, Vince Salandria and Mark Lane all passed on, she was the last survivor of that trail blazing drive into Dallas. This helps commemorate that important journey.  

    _____

    Read The Unsinkable Marguerite Oswaldby Harold Feldman.

    Read this analysis of Jean Stafford’s interviews with Marguerite Oswald, published in Kennedys and King in November 2022, and based on hearing the original interview recordings.

     

  • A Spy on our Side: Amaryllis Fox Kennedy and JFK Assassination Transparency

    A Spy on our Side: Amaryllis Fox Kennedy and JFK Assassination Transparency

    A Spy on Our Side: Amaryllis Fox Kennedy and JFK Assassination Transparency

    The Axios  news outlet ran a story a few days ago about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s endorsement of his daughter-in-law, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, for deputy director of the CIA (“Exclusive: RFK Jr.’s secret push to prove CIA killed uncle,” Stef W. Kight, Mike Allen, Dec. 11, 2024). Fox Kennedy is a former CIA officer who worked undercover in a counterterrorism capacity and wrote a book about her experiences, Life Undercover: Coming of Age in the CIA (2019). The CIA reacted by suing her for violating non-disclosure agreements and lost. 

    The Axios piece highlights RFK Jr.’s continued prioritization of transparency in the death of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, since a close and supportive family member in such a senior slot at the agency would further that goal. It surely couldn’t hurt. Nominees for the number-two position at the CIA don’t have to undergo Senate confirmation either, meaning President-elect Donald Trump could appoint Amaryllis directly once he takes office in five weeks’ time.

    It’s always welcome when Bobby Kennedy brings the JFK assassination back into the current news cycle, even if only briefly. Whenever a sixty-plus-year-old event, however momentous, raises its head in today’s headlines, mainstream media naturally sidelines it quickly, before the reading public even has time to focus on it, in favor of the flavor of the week. But the Amaryllis Fox Kennedy story has gained traction for more than a day. It was soon picked up by the neoconservative New RepublicThe Telegraph of the U.K., and other outlets within 24 hours. As of this writing, the (RFK Jr.-hostile) New York Times has run an update to its Dec. 11 article on Friday, Dec. 13. 

    The backlash has already started, Bobby Kennedy’s foppish nephew, Jack Schlossberg, accuses him of being a “Russian spy” for daring to suggest that the CIA had a hand in the murder of America’s 35th president. Schlossberg posted the Axios article to X with the note: “@RobertKennedyJr you are so obviously a Russian spy … You all think I’m joking. Hahahaha”. I’m guessing Jack Schlossberg justifies his failure to offer any evidence that his uncle is an agent of Moscow on the basis that, if he did, he might compromise “national security.” That’s the usual excuse for making such claims. Who can disprove them, after all? Schlossberg’s implication is, if you question the official narrative on JFK’s death, you’re an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia. In fact, by the reasoning of more than one person I’ve encountered, anyone criticizing the CIA is one of those. 

    But what does today’s Russia have to do with the JFK assassination, a matter of U.S. national history? Schlossberg might be suggesting that JFK’s murder was the result of a Soviet conspiracy at the height of the Cold War, as one or two authors have argued.  It is thus better to keep such evidence hidden under the “need to know” principle. But why? Assuming for the sake of argument that the Soviet KGB murdered Kennedy, the U.S.S.R. collapsed nearly 33 years ago, and the Cold War ended years before that. Schlossberg’s adolescent “in the know” posturing appears baseless. He always looks like he slept on the beach the night before after partying hard, at the expense of late-night research into the assassination of his grandfather. As Trump would say: Sad!

    If the past is anything to go by, we can expect the Amaryllis Fox Kennedy story to die down in the news until Trump makes a decision on her. But again, importantly, the JFK assassination is still a live issue at the top of U.S. politics. A mutual acquaintance told me he asked RFK Jr. directly several months ago when he was running for the highest office, whether his first act as president would be to order the release of the JFK files. Bobby’s answer was that it would be second, after freeing the journalist Julian Assange of the U.S. Department of Justice’s prosecution. Now that Assange is back in Australia and not behind bars, JFK has presumably moved up a notch on the list of open government priorities. In the midst of pursuing his enduring passion to improve public health, Kennedy has found time to remind everyone that the murder of his uncle, who likely saved humanity from extinction during the Cuban Missile Crisis, is still a source of widespread public mistrust. That is a good thing.

    It also needs to be mentioned that President Trump’s nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, has argued for some time in favor of transparency over JFK (along with 9/11 and other issues). He has vowed to take a “wrecking ball” to the Bureau and even told one interviewer he would shut down the J. Edgar Hoover building on Pennsylvania Avenue and reopen it as a “Museum of the Deep State.” While he’s at it, he could remove Hoover’s name from that monstrosity (considered, in all seriousness, to be a piece of “brutalist” architecture) as part of a national truth and reconciliation process. Alternatively, he could leave Hoover’s name on it when he converts it to a place that features halls of exhibits of the darkest chapters in 20th-century U.S. history. With members of the American public and the countless tourists descending on Washington every year from all over the world, leaving Hoover’s name on a museum like that might be apropos.

    With all that said, including assassination transparency advocates in the Trump II cabinet (Tulsi Gabbard as DNI deserves a mention) is only half the task. Trump himself has said repeatedly that release of the JFK files would be his first act on reentering the Oval Office, aptly describing it to Joe Rogan as a “cleansing” process for the country. But even with the best of intentions, Trump has to handle this carefully, or the federal agencies in control of relevant records will evade even his executive orders, just as they’ve evaded the law until now. The problem, as veteran assassination researchers know, is that the redacted files in the JFK Collection at the National Archives are only part of what’s still hidden. Trump will need a permanent mechanism to “cleanse” the government, and that means a new bureaucratic entity. With his push to “trim fat” from the federal government with the aid of Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and a new Department of Government Efficiency, he might feel a new declassification unit would be at cross purposes. Let’s hope not.

    As many here know, I’ve written frequently for the JFK Facts publication of investigative author and historian Jefferson Morley. As vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF), he qualifies as an “activist” in the issue of official disclosure in the JFK assassination. So do the other principals of MFF, such as Rex Bradford and Bill Simpich. MFF is in federal court in California now, still suing the government in the civil action of Mary Ferrell Foundation v President Biden and the National Archives (MFF v Biden). Simpich is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, who include Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar, and Larry Schnapf is co-counsel. In writing occasional articles about that case, I’ve acquired a greater-than-average familiarity with what’s actually at stake in advocating for government transparency in the matter of JFK. It’s as disturbing as it is fascinating.

    At the core of the litigation isn’t just the JFK Collection. That does, admittedly, include thousands of still-redacted documents that should all be released. However, in many ways the JFK Collection feels like a distraction from the main issue. Government officials and other public figures have occasionally propagated the “nothing to see here” argument about those files. In other words, they say, they’ve seen them, and there’s nothing left there that’s really relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy, so move on. Mike Pompeo said as much in an interview with John Stossel last year. Kash Patel told Glenn Beck several months ago that he had already seen “the entire JFK file,” and that what’s withheld isn’t what JFK assassination researchers are looking for. 

    With all due respect, this is very doubtful indeed. Both Patel and Pompeo basically argue that continued redactions only conceal the identities of people who are still alive and still in need of protection today. That isn’t true. It’s also not true that the still-redacted files left in the JFK Collection don’t relate to the assassination. All you have to do is select a bunch of redacted files at random, read around the redactions, and see that a ton of documents are directly relevant as defined under the controlling federal law, the JFK Records Act of 1992. No one believes that the June 1961 memorandum to President Kennedy by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on reorganizing the CIA, for example, is unrelated. A page-and-a-half block of its text is redacted, and it’s not all names of individual CIA agents still alive. In short, there are still thousands of files in the JFK Collection kept at NARA II that need to be released in full. They are vital to the ongoing process of completing the historical record. At the same time, however, releasing those files in full won’t get to the heart of the matter.

    Recently I wrote a piece for JFK Facts on Kash Patel’s nomination, entitled, “One Key JFK File That Kash Patel Could Release If He’s Confirmed as FBI Director.” It’s a 30-page FBI file on the prolific Cuban hit man Sandalio Herminio Diaz Garcia, usually known simply as Herminio Diaz, who settled in the U.S. four months before the assassination after requesting political asylum and being debriefed by the CIA. At that time he was working for two people: Florida crime boss Santos Trafficante (as a bodyguard), and ex-Cuban premier Tony Varona (as an agent). Varona himself was a CIA agent with two cryptonyms, AMHAWK and AMDIP-1 who headed the CIA-backed Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), which lost its direct government funding some time in 1963, as the Kennedy administration moved toward peaceful coexistence with Castro. But anti-Castro Cuban exile groups such as the CRC had already been cooperating with Trafficante and other organized crime leaders for years, and without financial support from the U.S. government, the Mafia became more important. In the middle of all this was Herminio Diaz, perhaps the most conspicuous human nexus between the CIA and the Mob in the entire JFK assassination saga.

    Whether or not you believe Herminio Diaz took part in the assassination of JFK (as Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien concluded in their popular podcast of last year, “Who Killed JFK?”) and whether or not Diaz really was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, either as a gunman or some kind of facilitator, documents about him are clearly “assassination related” under the federal statute. Has Kash Patel seen the heavily redacted FBI report on Diaz? I wouldn’t bet on it. Furthermore, I’d bet that that report – despite having been created by the FBI – is in Herminio Diaz’s “personality” (201) file, and is thus in the possession of the CIA. If Herminio Diaz’s 201 file is in the JFK Collection at the National Archives, I’m not aware that anyone has located it. There’s the rub.

    The purpose of MFF v Biden isn’t just to compel the government to disclose in full all the files in the JFK Collection. It’s to make sure the process of declassification continues beyond that. As many experts on the subject (some on this site) will confirm, the CIA never honored the “memorandum of understanding” it signed with the National Archives and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1998 to follow up on search requests that remained outstanding when the ARRB wrapped up. Instead, the CIA just dragged its heels and directed researchers to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for their requests all these years. The very purpose of the JFK Records Act and ARRB were to remedy the deficiencies of FOIA. It’s just as in 1964, when CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton advised his agency colleagues to “wait out the commission.” It’s like from 1976-1979, when the Agency stonewalled investigators of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) through illegal appointment of ex-CIA “liaison” George Joannides, as the former chief counsel of the HSCA, Robert Blakey, now publicly admits. And it’s just like when the CIA “waited out” the ARRB from 1994-1998, so that when records were coming in very fast in the final days of the Review Board’s life, the Agency was able to bury important files in the mass and withhold them from the declassification process, as the board’s former chairman, Judge John Tunheim, now publicly admits. As a result, not everything relevant is in the JFK Collection in the Archives today.

    With all the good will in the world, therefore, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, Kash Patel, RFK Jr., and even President Donald J. Trump himself are going to have to do more to “cleanse” the body politic where the JFK assassination is concerned. Patel has suggested setting up a “24/7 declassification office” in the White House to “take incoming” from the American public on everything from JFK to 9/11 and beyond. Great idea, and we should all hope to see it. But Patel will have to focus on what the “Deep State” he wants to upend is really hiding with regard to JFK, and it isn’t just the names of still-living informants. It’s the 201 file of Herminio Diaz, who died in 1966 in a raid on Cuba, led by Cuban CIA agent Tony Cuesta. It’s more than 40 files on the long-dead Joannides, which the CIA – through sleight of hand – never turned over to the Review Board. It’s a CIA Inspector General’s report spotted by a CIA officer in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in Herndon, VA, relating to CIA strategy to deceive and divert the HSCA, along with a videocassette in a case labeled “Oswald in Mexico.” People with much greater, more detailed knowledge than I have could provide a much longer list, and I would urge anyone wanting more to visit MFF’s lawsuit page (and to donate to the plaintiffs’ case if you can).

    In conclusion, I’d like to make a plug for bipartisanship in these toxically polarized times. To increase our chances of achieving full JFK disclosure, the Trump administration should reach across the aisle to Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), perhaps the only member of our national legislature who still qualifies as a genuine “activist” on the subject of JFK. He has sought out other members of Congress over the years to oppose repeated presidential postponements and even secured the signature of a Republican on one his many letters to the White House and (murky) Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), urging prompt release of the records. The scheme Biden imposed by executive order in December 2022 – the CIA-devised “Transparency Plan” – is supposed to replace the process established under the JFK Records Act, essentially burying a living law passed unanimously by Congress. Biden has been deaf to all criticism of what he had done on the issue.

    Cohen is currently crafting a bill to recreate the ARRB in some form, to finish the work it was established to do before its premature termination in 1998. The Trump administration should support such an effort. I noted in my article on Kash Patel that his White House declassification office should be compatible with Cohen’s new Review Board. It’s not one or the other. We should have both, and they should work together, one housed in the White House, the other at the Archives. With advocates like Kash Patel and Amaryllis Fox Kennedy occupying high offices in the executive branch, a new statutory panel can help ensure the job is done thoroughly. Of all the issues polarizing Washington today, the JFK assassination spans the toxic divide and has the potential to bridge it. That’s what genuine “truth and reconciliation” means, and that’s what we need. 

  • RFK Jr. Pushes Appointment to Investigate JFK murder

    Bobby Kennedy is going to push to have his daugher-in-law installed as Deputy at CIA and investigate his uncle’s killing there. Read more.

  • Rick Perlstein and the Wages of Denial

    Rick Perlstein and the Wages of Denial

    Rick Perlstein and the Wages of Denial 

    Rick Perlstein cannot control his flatulence on the subject of John Kennedy. Perlstein is best known for his four volume set about the rise of the New Right.  This was published from 2001-20. It included the books Before the StormNixonland, The Invisible Bridge, and Reaganland

    It is my belief, and also that of authors like David Talbot and John Newman, that one cannot tell that story without discussing the suspicious assassinations and following cover ups of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. As I wrote in the afterword to the anthology The Assassinations, the relevant question is what would have happened if all four had lived? (See p. 636) To take just one example, all four were involved with the historic 1963 March on Washington. In fact, as Irving Bernstein noted in his book Promises Kept, President Kennedy was the first white politician to endorse that event in public. He then called in his, rather surprised, brother and told him that, as Attorney General, he was going to provide security.  This demonstration had to come off perfectly since they were laying themselves on the line and their enemies would take them apart if it did not. It did come off perfectly and many believe it is the high point of post-war American liberalism.

    Robert Kennedy was looking forward to running against Richard Nixon in 1968.  He very likely would have been the candidate, if he was not killed in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in June of 1968. As Lisa Pease demonstrated in her excellent book on that case, A Lie too Big to Fail, Sirhan Sirhan not only was not his killer, he could not have been the assassin. 

    And unlike what Perlstein has written elsewhere, John Newman has shown that Bobby Kennedy was part of his brother’s plan to withdraw from Vietnam. (JFK and Vietnam, Second Edition, p. 416) Even Mr. Hardball, Chris Mathews has said that Bobby Kennedy would have been the anti-Vietnam candidate in 1968. (Bobby KennedyA Raging Spirit, p. 311) Hubert Humphrey’s fatal error was in not making this clear early enough in the campaign. Thus separating himself from the man who reversed Kennedy’s Vietnam policy, Lyndon Johnson. It was RFK’s  assassination, and that issue, that brought Richard Nixon his victory in 1968. Without that victory, what would Perlstein’s tetralogy have looked like?

    Make no mistake, as a man of the  doctrinaire left—he wrote for The Village Voiceand The Nation–Perlstein understands his dilemma and the problem it poses for him.  Long ago he decided on a “take no prisoners” stance on it.  At the fiftieth anniversary of JFK’s murder he wrote a column for The Nation. (November 21, 2013) Consider how he opened that essay:

    The argument that John F. Kennedy was a closet peacenik, ready to give up on what the Vietnamese called the American War upon re-election, received its most farcical treatment in Oliver Stone’s JFK. It was made with only slightly more sophistication by Kenneth O’Donnell in the 1972 book, Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye….

    Note the way Perlstein pens this passage.  First the book he refers to was written by both O’Donnell and Dave Powers. Powers and O’Donnell told House Speaker Tip O’Neill that they heard shots from the grassy knoll area during the assassination. But the FBI talked them out of this testimony. (Man of the House, p. 178) When Kennedy was killed, Powers left the White House but O’Donnell stayed on until 1965. Therefore he was in a position to see how Johnson altered Kennedy’s Indochina policy.

    As per Oliver Stone’s picture–which came well after that book—the film’s Vietnam angle was based on the work of two men: John Newman and Colonel Fletcher Prouty. Prouty worked under General Victor Krulak, who was directly involved with Vietnam policy under both Kennedy and Johnson. Therefore, he was also in position to observe the alterations to Kennedy’s Vietnam policy.  Newman was the first person to write an entire book based on Kennedy’s policy in Vietnam and how it was changed afterwards. This included how Kennedy’s NSAM 263 was neutralized by NSAM 273. That later order was delivered to the White House after Kennedy’s murder.  Newman demonstrated how National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy’s draft of 273 was significantly altered by Johnson, when Bundy thought he was writing it for Kennedy. (Newman, pp. 462-66)

    Newman also included an important quote from Johnson, which he made in December of 1963. This is just one month after Kennedy was killed. At a White House Christmas Eve reception the new president told the Joint Chiefs, “Just get me elected, and then you can have your war.” As writer Monica Wiesak showed in her book on the Kennedy presidency, JFK did not even want the generals visiting Saigon, let alone planning for war there. (America’s Last President, p. 133) 

    As Fletcher Prouty pointed out, there was not one more combat troop in Vietnam on the day Kennedy was killed than when he was inaugurated. And, in fact, Kennedy was at work withdrawing the advisors at the time of his murder. The declassified record of the Sec/ Def conference of May 1963 in Hawaii proves this beyond any doubt.  The Pentagon was shocked in 1962 when they first learned of Kennedy’s plans to remove the advisors. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 120)

    To get around his tract-like thinking, what Perlstein did in 2013 was to rely on Noam Chomsky.. He says that Chomsky insisted that the withdrawal plan was reliant on Saigon winning the war. How this could happen without direct American intervention is a mystery that neither Perlstein nor Chomsky ever explained. And General Maxwell Taylor underlined this reality for all to see:

    I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against sending combat troops, except one man and that was the president. The president just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do….It was really the president’s personal conviction that the US ground troops shouldn’t go in. (Wiesak, p. 128)

    U. Alexis Johnson, Dean Rusk’s Deputy, said the same for the record. Kennedy had drawn the line at “no combat troops” in 1961.  And this line was clear and indelible. (Richard Parker, John Kenneth Galbraith, p. 371) 

    But beyond that, as a result of that Sec/Def meeting in Hawaii in May of 1963, General Earle Wheeler stated that any proposal for overt action would be treated negatively by President Kennedy. (Wheeler notes of 5/6/63, Pacific Command meeting). The final hole in Chomsky’s leaking rowboat was applied by Newman when he listened to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s debriefs as he left the Pentagon. In those sessions McNamara said that it did not matter if Saigon was losing or winning.  Once the training period was over, America was getting out.  He and Kennedy had mutually decided on this policy in advance.  (Vietnam: The Early Decisions, edited by Lloyd C. Gardner and Ted Gittinger, pp. 164-67) 

    If anyone needed any more convincing of the difference between Kennedy and Johnson on Indochina just look at the first meeting LBJ helmed on the issue. As CIA Director John  McCone later wrote, the difference between the two presidents was readily apparent. Johnson said he had never been happy with our operations in Vietnam. And any person who disagreed with his policy should be removed. He actually compared losing South Vietnam to losing China in 1949. (Newman, p. 459) To put it mildly, Kennedy did not see it that way.  As he told General Lyman Lemnitzer, if we did not go into Cuba which was 90 miles away, why should we do so in Vietnam which was 8,000 miles away? (Newman, pp. 139-40)

    Johnson’s new policy was enthroned in NSAM 288 in March of 1964. This order is crucial in understanding what happened  to escalate the war in Vietnam. With NSAM 288, Johnson and the Pentagon mapped out an entire air campaign against North Vietnam, with literally dozens of targets, using American planes and pilots. Perlstein has to know about its primacy since two other sources he uses, Edwin Moise and Fredrik Logevall, mention it at length. Echoing the Pentagon Papers, Logevall wrote it was hard to exaggerate the importance of NSAM 288 on the road to direct American intervention in the Vietnam War. (Logevall, Choosing War, p. 129; Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, pp. 24-25)  It is revealing that Perlstein did not mention this milestone in 2013.  Perhaps because it proved that what Kennedy would not do in three years, Johnson did in three months. 

    NSAM 288 was part of a  deliberate planning scheme by Johnson  to escalate the war and insert massive American air and land power into theater. That planning  eventually included a draft for a congressional declaration of war. LBJ placed William Sullivan in charge of this effort at first. (Joseph Goulden, Truth is the First Casualty, pp 87-91) The obvious question that Perlstein does not want to answer is: If as Johnson always said, his policy was a continuation of Kennedy’s, why would he have to do this? 

    The answer to that question is that LBJ knew Kennedy’s plan was withdrawal and he disagreed with it vehemently.  He even told McNamara this directly: How can you supervise a withdrawal in a war America is losing? (James Blight, Virtual JFK, p. 310) That conversation, which we have on tape, shows just how bankrupt Perlstein is in utilizing a zealot like Noam Chomsky. The war was being lost and LBJ knew Kennedy was withdrawing. The new president was not going to oversee America losing a war.

    Which relates to Perlstein’s opening piece of snark, about Kennedy being a closet peacenik. When did troops enter a combat theater under Kennedy?  There were certainly opportunities for this to happen.  For example at the Bay of Pigs, during the Berlin Crisis, in Laos, in Vietnam, and during the Missile Crisis. Kennedy did not do so in any case.  But we know that past and future presidents would have i.e. Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon. Eisenhower told Kennedy that Laos was the key to all of Southeast Asia, and if America had to, she should intervene unilaterally. (Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days, p. 163) Nixon was explicit when he told Kennedy he should declare a beachhead at the Bay of Pigs and send in the Marines. (Schlesinger, p. 288). Lyndon Johnson thought Kennedy was giving away too much in his negotiations over the Missile Crisis and not taking enough action. (The Kennedy Tapes, pp. 590—602, edited by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow). And Johnson sought and received Eisenhower’s approval  for his Vietnam escalations. (Blight, pp. 186-88). 

    Let us take another example. Does anyone think Kennedy would have sent the Marines into the Dominican Republic in 1965 to support a military dictatorship and deny the elected president Juan Bosch his office? Kennedy supported Bosch and began an economic embargo against the military coup. But Johnson sent 25,000 Marines into theater to safeguard Bosch from returning to power—which was a clear reversal of Kennedy’s policy. (Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street, pp. 78-79). But beyond that, Johnson had lied about his reasons for sending in those combat troops.  Senator William Fulbright and his staff grew suspicious of Johnson’s changing stores for the invasion. And they discovered that the “atrocities” LBJ bandied about were either clear exaggerations or, in many cases, simply fictional. (Goulden, pp. 165). This is important because it was Fulbright’s discoveries of these deceptions that led him to think that Johnson was also lying about his reasons for escalating in Vietnam—specifically the Tonkin Gulf incident. This then caused Fulbright to open the damaging senate hearings that the senator held about Vietnam that began to divide the nation and erode the president’s support for his land-air war in Indochina. (ibid, p. 171)

    What Perlstein and his like do is end up being camouflage for Johnson. It was Johnson’s disastrous foreign policy alterations which were largely responsible for splitting asunder the Democratic Party. As senate staffer Carl Marcy, working for Fulbright wrote, his hearings should try and ascertain what happened in the last 24 months to:

    Turn the liberal supporters of President Kennedy into opponents of the policies of President Johnson and the right wing opponents of Eisenhower and Kennedy into avid supporters of the present administration.(Goulden, p. 166)

    This was no less than a polarizing sea change and pretty much spelled the end of the FDR coalition stemming from the 1930’s. It literally exploded at the Chicago convention in 1968. Largely because Robert Kennedy was not there.

    To ignore all the above is simply astonishing.

    But now Perlstein has come back for more.  On December 5, 2024 he wrote another article, this time for The American Prospect. He now says that somehow the high feelings that the American populace has for the fallen Kennedys is a cult. If one can believe it, Perlstein actually uses  a 22 year old blogger named Joshua Cohen to dismiss this “cult”.  He quotes him as saying that baby boomers believed Kennedy was doing some things that others really did not want him to do.  And they took drastic action to stop him; this was followed by the end of the American Golden Age.

    Perlstein says that this was perhaps partly true.  In 1963 Kennedy did make a  fine speech on civil rights and then he did the Peace Speech at American University. Incredibly, this is all that Perlstein can come up with as to Kennedy’s achievements while in office.  He can name not one of Kennedy’s reversals of John Foster Dulles’ foreign policy: in the Middle East, in Indonesia, in Congo to name just three examples.  Or how this all reversed back under Johnson. This is really kind of shocking considering Kennedy’s relationship with Gamel Abdul Nasser and what is happening in the Middle East right now.  And of course he pretty much leaves out Vietnam.   

    I won’t even go into how he gives Kennedy short shrift on civil rights. But I will say that it is provable that JFK did more for that issue than FDR, Truman and Eisenhower combined. And this started on his first day in office.  That night he called up Treasury Secretary Doug Dillon.  He asked him: Why were there no black faces in that Coast Guard parade? Dillon said he did not know. Kennedy told him to find out.  This eventually led to the first affirmative action order in American history in March of 1961.  It is pretty hard to avoid a milestone like that.  But Mr. Historian of the sixties does it. When one links to this series the reader will see the work that I did and Perlstein failed to do. (https://www.kennedysandking.com/reviews/the-kennedys-and-civil-rights-how-the-msm-continues-to-distort-history-part-1

    What is amazing is how much Kennedy accomplished—for example with the economy– in slightly less than three years.

    Perlstein then gets even worse. He actually mentions Vincent Bugliosi’s oversized and overlong book on the JFK case, Reclaiming History. He says that his book demolished “every existing conspiracy claim”.  One does not know whether to laugh or cry at a statement as stupid as that. Bugliosi’s book was simply and completely a fraud.  And this author himself showed that was the case in a normally sized book length treatment. I demonstrated with footnotes how Bugliosi violated his own opening statement, namely that he would not leave out anything of importance. He did just that and he did it many times. (See The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today) That Perlstein could fully endorse a mirage like that shows what a cheap grandstander he is about the subject.

    About all the evidentiary holes in the Warren Report, like the MSM, Perlstein can chalk that up to fear of expanding the Cold War, “not an assassination conspiracy”.  He even states that this was J. Edgar Hoover’s excuse. Perlstein is unaware he is now in sci-fi land.  He apparently does not know that the FBI report on the JFK case does not include the Single Bullet Theory! But further that Hoover did all he could to cover up the bullet strike to bystander James Tague. Because that would undermine his report’s theory that all the projectiles struck inside the car. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pp. 130-38) In other words Hoover knew the lone assassin paradigm was baloney.  And he actually admitted this in private–not once, but twice. (DiEugenio, p. 246)

    How can one explain what the CIA did with the Oswald tale in Mexico City as “the routine passion of bureaucracies to hide their own incompetence”?  That one is a doozy, even for Perlstein. Oswald visited both the Cuban and Russian embassies five times.  So there should be ten pictures of him entering and exiting. In 61 years, the CIA has not produced one. Since both embassies were also electronically bugged, the CIA should be able to produce a tape of the man’s voice. The one they sent to Dallas while Oswald was in detention was not Oswald. This is what drove Hoover to write on the marginalia of a memo that the CIA sold him a snow job on Oswald in Mexico City. (DiEugenio, p. 304)

    There is nothing fanciful about the above.  These are all evidentiary holes in the JFK case.  There is nothing political or “mythic” about  them. But either Perlstein or his buddy Cohen do not know about them, or they do not want to admit them.  Either alternative shows just what a faux historian Rick Perlstein really is.