Tag: JFK ASSASSINATION

  • Journalists and JFK, Introduction: How to Succeed in the News Media


    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3


    How about we start our article with a fascinating question. What is the single most fascinating aspect of the Kennedy mystery to you? Not necessarily a smoking gun or a case solver, just something about the case that causes you to stop for a moment of wonder and fascination. Mine, hands down, would be the fact that George de Mohrenschildt, who of course was Oswald’s closest friend in Dallas, was known to the child Jackie Kennedy as Uncle George. She had a beautiful French name, Jacqueline Bouvier. She actually sat on his lap at the age of 5 while Uncle George dated and almost wed Jackie’s aunt…. on top of that, sly George D went out with her mother as well! Is that bizarre or what?

    Second on my fascination list and the subject of this particular article are the newsmen who were in Dealey Plaza November 22nd, 1963 or involved very closely thereafter. The Earth has orbited the sun 47 times and most are still parroting the lone nut, single bullet theory. Growing fascination seems to be limitless in this case… Interest has proven only to be directly proportional with the passage of time with no end in sight. The fight against good and evil has only intensified as the 50th anniversary boiling point looms near panic levels. It seems the generational propaganda war has largely been fought through illusionary cheap trick disinformation campaigns over the years. Reminiscent of Russia quietly installing missiles in Cuba, it seems Hollywood is where rockets of disinfo are on the drawing board in preparation for the half-century milestone onslaught. How unlikely after nearly fifty years that the establishments newest warriors would be actors? Actors like Forest Gump, I mean Tom Hanks??? And Leonardo DiCaprio (getting that sinking feeling?) Are they witting? Unwitting? It’s hard to tell. Why not try actors? It’s obvious the newsmen weren’t that successful.

    Lets take a closer look at the

    The Newsmen in Dallas Texas 11/22/1963

    Of course, the most widely known is Dan Rather, whose job it was that day to wait at the end of the motorcade, snatch up the news reels and hustle them back to the developing room. Thanks to the amateur moviemaker, Abraham Zapruder, word quickly spread that the assassination had been caught on his Bell & Howell Zoomatic. As expected an outcry for access to the home made 8mm Kodachrome film followed. I would like to know who’s bright idea it was to allow a single newsman to view the most valuable piece of evidence in the entire case and describe it’s contents to the world. Of all the people on the face of the earth, Daniel Irving Rather was the one chosen to view it. Almost like an NFL referee going under the curtain to review a play, then trots back on the field to tell us what happened. I’m not sure if the film was tampered with, or if he sold his soul then and there, but Dan described it to fit the lone nut, shot from the rear hoax by saying the president’s head was thrown violently forward! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXi0usMq30E&feature=related)

    If Dan’s soul was not purchased by the devil in 1963, it sure was purchased by 1967. And so was Walter Cronkite’s. Because in 1967, the dynamic duo cooperated on a four night special entitled A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report. (Click here to view this fiasco) This pitiful program provided a template to be followed by irresponsible journalists for years to come. And Mr. Rather went on to make 4 more documentaries essentially saying the same thing! Yet, in a careless financial decision, CBS could have saved a lot of time and money by simply running the same one over and over. I wonder now, in the twilight of his life, when sitting alone, if Rather feels it was worth it. Especially after being unceremoniously kicked to the curb by CBS management over a document questioning George W. Bush’s military service. Dan Rather succeeded Walter Cronkite as the top anchor for the CBS Evening News, News Director for CBS, and chief bottle carrier for the Warren Commission. We can all agree that Dan Rather rode as high as he could carrying water, and then when he stopped carrying it, he fell like a roller coaster in 2005.

    Though widely known to most people, but not often associated with the Kennedy assassination, is Bob Schieffer. Schieffer was in a rather low post at the Fort Worth Star newspaper at the time. His assignment that day was to be told to stay back and answer the phones while 16 other staff reporters covered the biggest local news event of the century. While faithfully manning the phones a woman called in asking for a ride into Dallas. He responded by telling her “Lady, the President has been shot and besides, we are not a taxi service.” Sensing the scoop a lifetime’after discovering she was the mother of the accused assassin’the underdog reporter suddenly found the nearest phone booth, transformed himself into a taxi cab driver, and flew downtown at the speed of sound to the Dallas Police Station. He keenly kept the enemy reporters at bay by masquerading as a detective, marching right past the entourage like a super spy wearing a detective style brim hat as camouflage (Follow this link and see it for yourself) Bob later admitted to selling the “Extra! Extra! Read all about it!” copies of the assassination in Dealey Plaza for a dime apiece. That’s a long rise to the top from being the first peddler of JFK info in Dealey Plaza to Chief Washington correspondent for CBS. Bob can be seen to this very day, 47 years after the assassination, hosting Face the Nation. Bob was also the host of the McCain/Obama Presidential debates.

    I feel sorry for Bob though. He seems like an above-board human being as well as newsman. It’s hard to watch him parrot the lone nut story when we all know better. You can tell he doesn’t want to lie…. but for the betterment of himself, his family and friends, alas he must….

    Next we have Peter Jennings, the first Canadian reporter on the ground in Dallas, Texas 11/22/63. It’s hard to believe Peter Jennings was rubbing elbows at the station with folks like Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, Jack Ruby, Will Fritz, Jessie Curry, Roger Craig, Henry Wade, (Remember the landmark abortion case Roe vs Wade? Well, that is Henry.) Peter Jennings, our 10th grade dropout, clearly rose to the highest levels in news broadcasting. And unlike Bob Schieffer, it wasn’t enough to just stay quiet and keep a low profile about JFK. Peter is guilty of narrating in my opinion, one of the worst TV specials ever on the JFK case, Beyond Conspiracy. This documentary was actually organized by Gus Russo, whose name was taken off the piece when ABC was alerted to the fact that Russo misrepresented his mythological ‘Pulitzer Prize nomination’. It featured such witnesses and experts as Nicholas Katzenbach. Gerald Posner, Robert Dallek, Hugh Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson, Ed Butler, Dale Myers, and Ruth Paine among others. The computer-generated recreation of the assassination by Dale Myers must rank near the top of the most pathetic pseudo-scientific attempts of grasping at straws to hold together the Warren Commission Report in history. Jennings, of course, held the top anchor job for ABC until his death from cancer in 2005. Looks like 2005 was a bad year for Dan and Peter. (Click here for CTKA’s methodical demolition of this sorry program.)

    Believe it or not the hosts of the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, now in its 41st year, were in such close proximity as to actually hear the gunshots that stunned the world.

    Robert MacNeil supposedly bumped into Oswald right in front of the Texas School Book Depository. He can be seen in a picture up on the Grassy Knoll looking for the gunman. Hmm, I wonder why he didn’t run towards the sixth floor sniper’s nest? However, I must credit Robert MacNeil. As far as I know, he always maintained the possibility of conspiracy. Jim Lehrer, however, has appeared in a few ‘Oswald did it’ shows. As soon as I hear a journalist utter the term “lone nut”, I know all I need to know. Jim Lehrer is guilty of that offense. MacNeil has passed on, but his colleague still works for PBS with the Jim Lehrer News Hour.


    Get ready now for the infamous Hugh Aynesworth. Hugh was the most peculiar of the newsmen in Dallas. He was a science and technology reporter who had no assignment that day. By his own recollections, Hugh is the Superman reporter of the case. He was literally everywhere. Hugh says he was 1.) A witness to the assassination being present in Dealey Plaza 2.) At the arrest of Lee Oswald at the Texas Theater 3.) First reporter on the seen of the Tippit murder and 4.) Johnny-on-the-spot at the execution of Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of Dallas police station. On top of all that he was the first print reporter to interview Marina Oswald. Wow, better have some kryptonite around to fight this guy off.

    Now, Rather, Jennings, Schieffer and Lehrer, when called upon, certainly did their duty to prop up the official lie. Aynesworth, however, literally made a career out of the assassination. In Dallas, he made it his job to criticize early books attacking the Krazy Kid Oswald view of the case. He was in on the heist of the alleged “Oswald Diary” from the Dallas Police property room. He then managed to get a job with the Life magazine team investigating the Kennedy case in 1966.

    And, of course, he was one of the major players in sabotaging Jim Garrison’s attempts at uncovering part of the conspiracy in New Orleans. There is evidence of him feeding information directly to the FBI and LBJ, keeping them abreast of Jim Garrison’s investigation. And much more recently, in 2008, he appeared in Robert Stone’s one-sided documentary on the JFK case, Oswald’s Ghost. (See here)

    So from day one, Hugh Aynesworth has squealed”‘Oswald did it!”’ And he has not deviated one millimeter from that in the earth’s 47 trips around the sun since then. Maybe that has something to so with his application for a CIA position in 1963, just six weeks before Kennedy’s murder. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 25). It seems he was eventually accepted by the Agency. Why? Because at the time of the Garrison investigation, he was bribing the Clinton witnesses with positions in the CIA. He tried to buy off Sheriff John Manchester with the following: “You could have a job as a CIA handler in Mexico for $38,000 a year.” Hugh added that all John would have to do is leave the state and not testify at the Clay Shaw trial. I liked Manchester’s rather pithy and earthy reply: “I advise you to leave the area. Otherwise I’ll cut you in a new asshole.” Aynseworth was and is a scoundrel. But not a stupid one. He left. (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 235.) For more on just how bad Aynseworth was and is, click here.

    Now, just where does a reporter who is so eager to fall in line and parrot a nonsensical deception seek employment? Well, how is this for starters: Newsweek, Life Magazine, US News and World Report, and CBS. Or an application for White House correspondent might be a good place to start. Hey, it worked for a guy nicknamed “the Wicker Man”. Every researcher I have spoken to simply detests this man.

    Tom Wicker can be seen in an old school reporters’ huddle outside of Parkland Hospital with pad and pencil, scribbling down the world-altering events of that fateful day. Tom rose to highest levels at the New York Times. An otherwise serious newsman, Tom seems a bit goofy today by attempting to discredit our hero’s investigation in light of what we know today. Today, most hardcore researchers I have spoken to look upon the mighty 6 foot, 6 inch Jim Garrison’aka the Jolly Green Giant’as something of a personal hero. The list of heroes in this sorry saga is quite short indeed. (How many heroes can you name who investigated the JFK case? That is, people who lost something significant as part of an official inquiry.) Here is a direct quote from Tom Wicker concerning the trial of Clay Shaw, taken from Oliver Stone’s DVD director’s cut bonus material:

    “That was a frivolous prosecution of Clay Shaw. It was dismissed almost immediately. No one other than Jim Garrison has ever tried to revive it., No one has said, other than Jim Garrison, this is what happened. It is a thoroughly discredited investigation.”

    Thanks Tom. Apparently you have not kept up with the JFK case one bit. You never picked up books by people like Joe Biles, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Davy, and Joan Mellen. You again look like a typically biased, self-serving shill in the face of each and every declassified document.

    It’s hard to measure how much these men helped their careers by being in Dallas on 11/22/63. However, it is easy to prove that if they planned on keeping their six and seven figure dream jobs and their high profile status, it was mandatory to learn to back the Krazy Kid Oswald myth. With well over 900 books written about this case, tireless private investigation, and 26 volumes known as the Warren Commission Report, it seems that as far as the MSM goes, all can be explained with three magic words: Oswald did it.

  • The Real Wikipedia? The Wikipedia Fraud Pt. 3: Wales Covers Up for the Warren Commission

    The Real Wikipedia? The Wikipedia Fraud Pt. 3: Wales Covers Up for the Warren Commission


    Part 1

    Part 2

    Addendum


    As with many aspects of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, when one enters the term “Warren Commission” into Yahoo, the first site that comes up is the citation on Wikipedia. This is unfortunate.

    For as JP Mroz has delineated in detail in two previous articles, Jimmy Wales invention of the so-called “People’s Encyclopedia” has not worked out quite as one would expect. In fact, to those interested in the assassination of President Kennedy, it has pretty much been an echo of the MSM. That is, it has been protective of the Warren Commission, selective in its source material, and as Mroz proved in his first article, it even used false evidence to connect Oswald to the alleged murder weapon.1 When Wikipedia was exposed on this, they then tried to cover their tracks.2

    There are two things quite odd about this stance. First, it does not at all accord with being a “People’s Encyclopedia”. Because the great majority of citizens do not believe the Warren Commission, it does not accurately reflect public opinion.3 Second, it does not accurately reflect the most recently declassified material on the Commission either. For with the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, the criticism of the Commission has become even more heated.4 For instance, Commissioner Gerald Ford arbitrarily moved up the position of the wound in Kennedy’s back5 to align with the Commission’s most controversial invention: the Single Bullet Theory. As recent books have shown, the Commission’s performance in accurately recording witness testimony has been shown to be even more problematic than most thought.6

    Because of all this, Wikipedia has resorted to censorship in order to keep up its show of deference for the Warren Commission and its now thoroughly discredited 888-page report. As Mroz pointed out in his first article, the man in charge of the censorship office at Wikipedia on the JFK case is Robert Fernandez of Tampa, Florida. (Screen name of Gamaliel.) Fernandez is most proud of his (disgraceful) Lee Harvey Oswald page—a page that seems to have been composed with the cooperation of the infamous John McAdams.7 As Mroz further pointed out, the censorship at Wikipedia on this subject is pretty much total. And it is conducted in three ways.

    First, the sources used in the footnoting are severely limited in their scope. The vast majority of the footnotes come from either official sources, or those who support the official story e.g. Vincent Bugliosi’s book “Reclaiming History.”8 This of course severely impacts the contents of the articles.

    Second, the “Back Talk” pages (where people try to comment and edit articles) are patrolled by the staffers who work for Wikipedia. Since the organization is a hierarchy, these staffers ultimately enforce Gamaliel’s line. In his articles on Wiki, Mroz detailed his interaction with one of these staffers, which very much illustrated this point. John McAdams is perhaps the most frequent party involved in these discussions.9 The fact that his site is often used in the final articles contributes to the traffic flow at his (abominable) web page.

    Third, although the actual “References” or “Further Reading” category at the bottom of the article may contain certain books critical of the official story, this is, for all intents and purposes, simply a fig leaf to disguise the actual control of the contents. For, as we shall see here, there is very little relationship between the titles listed in the Reference section and the actual sources in the material, as none of the reference book’s information seems to be utilized on the page, perhaps this section should be labeled “Find-the-Relation-Yourself Reading.” Additionally, there are valuable sources that you will simply never see listed even in the Reference/Further Reading section e.g. John Armstrong’s “Harvey and Lee,” or articles from “Probe Magazine.”10

    As the reader can see, far from being a “People’s Encyclopedia,” regarding the John F. Kennedy assassination, Wikipedia is nothing but a tightly controlled, one-sided, and unrelenting psy-op. Jimmy Wales might as well have turned the editorship of these pages over to say, former Warren Commission counsel Arlen Specter, who must be quite pleased with Wales and Wikipedia, who have done little more than cover up for him.

    I

    All of JP Mroz’ work in this field provides good background for the Wikipedia entry on the Warren Commission. The best thing that one can say about it is that it is relatively short. But in every other aspect it is a typical Wales/Gamaliel production.

    It begins with the actual appointment of the Commission by President Johnson.11 It deals with this very important decision in—get this—one sentence! So in other words, one never understands a key point about Johnson’s decision: He originally did not want to appoint a so-called “blue-ribbon panel.” This decision was imparted on the White House by forces that were not even in the government at this time. As Donald Gibson exposed so magnificently for “Probe Magazine”12 there were two men who were responsible for suggesting the idea on the White House staff: Eugene Rostow and Joe Alsop.13 They began their siege right after Jack Ruby killed Oswald.

    rostow
    Eugene Rostow
    stew joe alsop
    Joseph Alsop, standing
    Stewart Alsop, seated

     

    What we know as a fact is that Johnson initially planned to resolve the matter of an investigation into the assassination by turning over the FBI report to a Texas Committee of Inquiry. That was one reason that he sent his private attorney to meet with the Texas Attorney General. Johnson floated that idea with Stewart Alsop on the evening of Nov. 25, telling him he had spent most of the day putting together how it was going to work, implying he had met with Texas AG Carr. But after a long and forceful call from Joe Alsop, his allegiance to the Texas inquiry was loosened.14 Alsop’s advice to the President to expand a plan for a Texas “inquiry” to include at least two non-Texas jurists and to leave the Attorney General’s office out of the Texas group all together.

    25 two non Texas jurists

     

    Alsop also assured LBJ, “I’m not talking about an investigative body, I am talking about a body which will take all evidence the FBI has amassed when they have completed their inquiry and produce a report…” This is ultimately what the Warren Commission accomplished.15

    not talking about an investigative body

    This points out how effective the Wales/Gamaliel policy of limiting sourcing material is. So to imply, as this entry does, that the Warren Commission was Johnson’s original idea is not really accurate. The declassified phone calls by the Assassination Records Review Board show that it was not that simple.16

    As I exposed in my discussion of “Reclaiming History,” this whole issue of Johnson being maneuvered and cajoled into creating something he did not originate is mostly cut out of Bugliosi’s book.17 Although Bugliosi clearly had read Gibson’s article, which was excerpted in the book “The Assassinations,”18 he completely eliminated the call to LBJ by Alsop. Yet, anyone who reads the transcript of that call will understand this was a most important step in changing President Johnson’s mind on the issue. Needless to say, this article uses Bugliosi’s book as an important source.

    This is a crucial point. Why? Because the process had been covered up before. Since the House Select Committee on Assassinations had not declassified the phone calls (that Gibson used in his article), the actual circumstances of the Commission’s creation were shrouded in secrecy for decades—not only the creation, but also the purpose.

    What Wiki is leaving out of its story is that the Warren commissioners later said they didn’t agree with what they handed to the President and the American people, but they were convinced they stopped World War III by going along with the FBI’s investigation. Eventually, even the HSCA agreed with this in their final report, that they were convinced they stopped WW3. As we all know even the HSCA “concluded in their final report that the Commission was reasonably thorough and acted in good faith, but failed to adequately address the possibility of conspiracy.”19

    Therefore, the Commission idea had been credited to other persons previously e.g. Abe Fortas, Nicolas Katzenbach.20 Some even attributed it to Johnson himself, but it was actually instigated by people outside the government who were accurately labeled as members of the Eastern Establishment.

    lyndond johnson and abe fortas
    LBJ with Abe Fortas

    The next Wiki paragraph contains a rather amusing piece of understatement. It says that “some major officials were opposed to forming such a commission, and several commission members took part only with extreme reluctance.” This most likely refers to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s resistance to head the commission that would eventually take his name.21 Again, by leaving out certain important details, Wikipedia disguises a dark but very significant truth.

    Warren was reluctant to chair such a commission because he did not think it appropriate to give it the imprimatur of the Supreme Court. In fact, in an interview Warren gave to the LBJ Library, he specifically cited this as a reason for turning down Katzenbach’s first overture on the subject.22 Warren continued by saying that Johnson then called him in personally. The president said he was greatly disturbed by the rumors going around the world about a conspiracy, perhaps involving Castro or the Russians. And that if these continued to grow, it could catapult the world into a nuclear war. Johnson then told Warren that he had just talked to Secretary of Defense Bob McNamara, and if such a thing occurred, a first strike by the Soviets would cost the USA as many as sixty million lives. Johnson then said that he had all the members of the Commission now set up. But there was one thing missing: “I think this thing is of such great importance that the world is entitled to have the thing presided over by the highest judicial officer of the United States. You’ve worn a uniform; you were in the Army in World War I. This job is more important than anything you ever did in the uniform.”23 According to some sources, Warren left the meeting so emotionally distraught that he had tears in his eyes.24

    In a transcribed conversation that Johnson had with Senator Richard Russell, he went into a bit more detail about the process.25 He said that once Warren was in his office, he refused the offer two more times. Johnson then decided to play his ace card. He said he pulled out a piece of information given to him by FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover. This concerned Oswald in Mexico City. Johnson said, “Now, I don’t want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow…and that Castro killed him.” Johnson then confirmed that Warren did start to weep.26

    Johnson then used the same technique on Russell. He said, “…we’ve got to take this out of the arena where they’re testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and check us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour….”27

    The important point to note here is the material Johnson used to seal the deal with Warren. Clearly, this was the information about Oswald’s visits to the Russian and Cuban consulates in Mexico City and his alleged talk with Valery Kostikov at the Soviet consulate. Kostikov would be revealed to be a secret KGB agent in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere.

    Incredibly, Wikipedia leaves all of the above out. Yet it is of utmost importance in relation to what will happen inside the Commission, because Johnson’s intimidation tactics worked all too well with Warren. At the very first Warren Commission executive session meeting of December 5th, the former District Attorney of Alameda County, California came out as meek as a kitten. In his opening remarks this is what he said:

    1. He did not want the Commission to employ any of their own investigators.
    2. He did not want the Commission to gather evidence. Instead he wished for them to rely on reports made by other agencies like the FBI and Secret Service.
    3. He did not want their hearings to be public. He did not want to employ the power of subpoena.
    4. Incredibly, he did not even want to call any witnesses! He wanted to rely on interviews done by other agencies.
    5. He then made a very curious comment, “Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.”28

    What Warren meant by this and why he said it seems to be of the utmost importance in figuring out what he did and what his role was on the Commission.

    But whatever his ultimate meaning, it is clear that Warren had been neutered by Johnson’s warning of impending nuclear doom. Here is the Chief Justice of the United States saying that his fact finding commission on the murder of President Kennedy should not have any of its own investigators, should not hold public hearings, should not have subpoena power, and should not even call any witnesses! Because these things would “retard rather than help our investigation.” Just what kind of murder investigation could one have without these elements?

    Now, it is true that two of these strictures were taken back later. That is, the Commission did eventually have subpoena power and they did call witnesses. But the reason this was done was because the FBI report submitted by Hoover a few days later was incredibly shabby in every way. The Commission members knew it would never fly, even with the MSM. But yet, the FBI report is the kind of thing Warren was willing to tolerate at the start. This is how cowed he was. By leaving out these details, Wikipedia conceals the truth of how bad the Commission was, what its intentions really were, and why.

    But it’s actually even worse than that. Recall what Johnson used to intimidate Warren into his cover up stance of doing no investigation. It was information given to him by Hoover about Oswald’s alleged activities in Mexico City. Again, the ARRB went further in this regard. As John Newman discovered in the released documents, Hoover later realized he had been gulled by the CIA about this subject, that is, Oswald’s activities in Mexico. Seven weeks later, in the margin of a document describing CIA operations in the USA, Hoover wrote “OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can’t forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA, nor the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico only to mention two instances of their double dealing.”29 (italics added) After all, Hoover’s agents discovered that the tapes sent by the CIA to Dallas supposedly recording Oswald’s consulate visits did not contain Oswald’s voice on them.30

    So if properly informed, most readers would understand that Johnson used false information to neutralize Warren. Whether LBJ did this knowingly, or whether like Hoover, he did not understand at the time, that is a secondary question to this discussion. The point is that any reader of Wikipedia would not be aware of any of it. They would only know that some members of the Commission were “extremely reluctant” to take part, without understanding who they were, why they were reluctant, and how they were then coerced into joining up and most of all, how that coercion, the threat of nuclear war, compromised the Commission from the very start. After all, Warren was told that if he probed too deeply, thermonuclear war was in the wings.

    So on the two key points in how the Commission was started—whose idea it was, and how certain members were convinced to join—Wikipedia has told us literally nothing. When, in fact, there is a lot to tell.

    II

    From here, the Wikipedia entry now lists the seven members of the Commission, General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, the assistant counsels and then the staff positions. They do not differentiate between the senior and junior counsel members. Nor do they indicate that the two sets of counsels worked in tandem with each other in certain areas of inquiry. For instance, Leon Hubert was a senior counsel who worked with junior counsel Burt Griffin on the case of Jack Ruby. The entry also does not define what certain staff members did, like Alfredda Scobey, or who interfaced with the working members and the actual Commission members.

    The next section is rather nebulously entitled “Method.” This could refer to any number of things like how the inner workings of the Commission were structured, or how the staff members prepared to interview a witness. It refers to neither. In a long direct quote from Bugliosi’s “Reclaiming History,” the entry seeks to defend against the closed nature of the proceedings. Bugliosi makes the distinction between “closed” and “secret” hearings. The Warren Commission was the former not the latter. In other words, if a witness wanted to talk about his testimony with others he could, and the transcripts were eventually published.

    Talk about damning with faint praise. President Johnson announced the appointment of the Warren Commission to the public. There was much publicity about this appointment, photo opportunities, personal profiles, etc. It was announced that by law that the Commission would issue a report. Everyone knew they were conducting closed hearings. How on earth could a fact-finding inquiry about President Kennedy’s death then be held in secret? Who would have believed such a proceeding? Especially after Ruby shot Oswald on national TV.

    What would have been much more interesting, honest, and relevant was to reveal here what Howard Roffman did in his fine book, “Presumed Guilty.”31 Roffman discovered that by January 11, 1964 Rankin had put together an outline for investigation that had some rather revealing headings:

    • Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy.
    • Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives
    • Murder of Tippit
    • Evidence Demonstrating Oswald’s Guilt

    In dealing with the charges of conspiracy, which were already floating around, Rankin wrote the following rubric: Refutation of Allegations.32 In reality this outline was all too revealing about the actual methodology behind the Commission. For the simple reason that at this point in time Rankin had just assembled a staff and not a single witness had been heard. Yet, clearly, the Commission had made up its mind as to who the chief—and only—suspect was. In other words, the evidence would now be fit into a scenario of Oswald’s guilt. And no matter how ridiculous that scenario got, Rankin and the Commission would stick with it.

    And it got pretty ridiculous. Oswald getting off three shots from a manual bolt-action rifle in six seconds, no problem. A single bullet going through both Kennedy and Governor John Connally, making seven wounds and shattering two bones yet emerging almost unscathed and discovered on the wrong stretcher at Parkland Hospital. No problem. No employee of the Texas School Book Depository placing Oswald on the 6th floor near the time of the shooting, no problem. We can just get Mr. Givens to change his story and, in all probability, lie to us.33

    I could go on and on. But this was the real methodology of the Warren Commission—to fit a square peg into a round hole. If the evidence did not fit, it did not really matter. The question then becomes: How did such a thing occur? Wikipedia does not have to answer that since they never describe the bizarre evidentiary details. But one thing they could have done under the rubric “method” is to note that the Commission never provided a defense counsel for the dead Oswald. In most fact-finding committees in Washington for example, each side gets a counsel: majority and minority. That did not happen here. In fact, it was explicitly refused. When Marguerite Oswald requested Mark Lane to represent her son’s interests before the Commission, the request was denied.34

    Now, as any attorney or judge will tell you, if there is no adversary procedure, any kind of legal hearing becomes a phony sideshow. Why? Because there is no real check on what the prosecution can do. This is why rules of procedure and evidence have evolved over time—to make sure that a modicum of fairness presides over the proceedings. The method of the Warren Commission from a legal standpoint was so bizarre as to be unrecognizable. Not only were Oswald’s interests not represented by a lawyer, there actually was no judge to control the questioning and decide on the legality and admissibility of exhibits. And since there was no defense, there was no cross examination of so-called expert testimony.

    In sum, as former HSCA photographic analyst Chris Sharrett has said, the Nazis at Nuremburg got more justice than Oswald. And as anyone who surveys the Nuremburg trial proceedings can see, this is certainly true. But in not describing the actual circumstances of the Warren Commission’s method, Wikipedia can avoid that accurate comparison.

    Another point that the entry avoids is in describing the personalities who made up the Commission. There is no mention that Allen Dulles was fired by President Kennedy as CIA Director because Kennedy felt Dulles had deceived him about the Bay of Pigs operation. There is no mention of John McCloy’s national security background or his part in the illegal Japanese internment during World War II. Nor is there mention of how he helped Klaus Barbie escape from Europe to South America. Or how as High Commissioner of Germany, he and Dulles cooperated in placing former Nazi Reinhard Gehlen in charge of West Germany’s intelligence apparatus. And, of course, there is no mention in the entry about Gerald Ford’s role as an FBI informant on the Commission for Cartha De Loach. These are all common knowledge today. Yet somehow, with Wikipedia, they do not exist.

    There is one other point about “method’ that should be noted. As most informed people realize today, the idea that the Warren Commission was a solid bloc, united on each and every question concerning Oswald and the evidence, this is a myth. Sen. Richard Russell was so disappointed by the proceedings that not only did he stop coming to hearings, he started his own private investigation.35 By the end he had the two other southern commissioners, Sen. Cooper and Rep. Boggs, halfway convinced that the whole thing was a dog and pony show. And in fact, Russell refused to sign the Commission report since he did not buy the Single Bullet Theory. Rankin tricked him into signing onto somewhat modified language penned by McCloy on condition that his reservations were recorded. They were not recorded.36

    For Fernandez and Jimmy Wales, that trenchant fact of deception, which tells us so much about the Commission’s ‘method’, is not worth elucidating the reader about.

    I wonder why?

    III

    The entry then goes to a large heading which will contain five subheads. The large heading is titled ‘Aftermath’. The five small headings grouped underneath it are: Secret Service, Commission Records, Criticisms, Witness testimony, and Other Investigations.

    Wikipedia’s first and only sentence dealing with the Secret Service reads as follows: “The specific findings prompted the Secret Service to make numerous modifications to their security procedures.” This is accurate, but again an understatement. The first part of the Warren Report, titled Summary and Conclusions, ends with a list of 12 Commission recommendations. Of the 12, eight are squarely aimed at the Secret Service.37 These are expanded upon at greater length later on in the volume.38 The most obvious and famous one was to make the assassination of a president a federal crime.

    What is interesting about these recommendations is this: The Commission named virtually no specific failures by the Secret Service in its report. For instance, although tacitly admitting that the FBI should have relayed information about Oswald so he would have been on the Secret Service Watch List, the Commission goes out of its way not to assign blame for this thundering failure.39 What Wikipedia does not tell the reader is that Hoover actually did blame someone. He secretly suspended 17 agents for this precise reason: the failure to monitor and relay proper information about Oswald to other authorities. But further, the Commission did not take time to explain the circumstances of several agents drinking liquor at Pat Kirkwood’s bar early on the morning of the 22nd.40 Nor did they say anything about the Secret Service altering the protection in the motorcade by lessening the number of side motorcycles and dropping men from the rear bumper of the Kennedy limo.41 Third, there was no criticism of the very questionable decision by Winston Lawson to maintain the almost insane dogleg through Dealey Plaza, which constituted a virtual assassin’s dream of an ambush. And fourth, the Commission never comes close to mentioning the most serious Secret Service lapse of all: the failure to relay the evidence of a plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago to the advance detail in Dallas. Because of the marked similarities of Chicago to Dallas—riflemen firing from tall buildings after the limo has exited an expressway—this would have made the Secret Service alter the parade route. Additionally, they probably would even have picked up Oswald since his profile was so similar to the patsy in the Chicago plot, Thomas Vallee42.

    We can understand why the Commission never went into any explanation of the above. It’s harder to understand why Wikipedia did not.

    The entry then describes the release of documents that had been previously classified by the Commission. It is true that the Commission published 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. But it is also true that nowhere to be found in those volumes were any of the internal working papers of the Commission or any transcript of their executive session hearings. Therefore, one could gain no insight into how these men came to their rather strange conclusions. What actually began the declassification process was when author Edward Epstein revealed in his 1966 book Inquest, that the FBI report on Kennedy’s death did not utilize the “Single Bullet Theory,” and did not account for the hit to James Tague. In that same year, the Freedom of Information Act was passed. And since it was aimed at declassifying executive branch documents, the interested public now began to see how the inner workings of the Commission were navigated.

    The next heading is titled “Criticisms.” This is how it begins: “In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, omissions, and conclusion.” Well, yep, I guess you could say that. It would be sort of like saying that George W. Bush sustained some criticism for invading Iraq. The criticism has been so overwhelming that every major thesis of the Commission has been rendered dubious. And the Commission’s methodology has been shown to be so unfair and agenda driven as to be an insult to any kind of true fact-finding mission. Since it had no true investigative staff of its own, it was largely reliant on the FBI. And since J. Edgar Hoover had decided upon Oswald’s guilt within 48 hours, there was no way he would reverse field.

    The next heading is ‘Witness Testimony’. Let me quote the entirety of the contents under this: “There were many criticisms about the witnesses and their testimonies. One is that many testimonies were heard by less than half of the commission and that only one of 94 testimonies was heard by everyone on the commission.”

    It’s true that the attendance record for the Commission to be sitting en toto and hearing a witness was sparse. But this is rather a minor failing. Since, for example, commission lawyers interviewing people in say Dallas or New Orleans heard the majority of live testimony. In fact, as Walt Brown has pointed out, the actual Commission itself heard about twenty per cent of the testimony.43

    The far more serious criticisms of the testimony are:

    1.  As Barry Ernest shows in his “The Girl on the Stairs,” a book about Texas School Book Depository employee Victoria Adams, witness testimony was manipulated in more than one way. It was falsely discredited, some of it was altered, and some of it was ‘off the record’.

    2.  The Commission, e.g. Adams’ friend Sandra Styles, never called certain witnesses.

    3.  Key witnesses are never even mentioned in the Warren Report, e.g. O. P. Wright, the man who co-discovered a bullet at Parkland Hospital, which later became CE 399, the Magic Bullet.

    4.  Key witnesses were never interviewed at all, e.g. Guy Banister, the man who employed Oswald in the summer of 1963 from his 544 Camp Street office.

    5. Important witnesses were asked far too few questions e.g. Thornton Boswell, one of the three pathologists who examined President Kennedy’s body for autopsy was asked only 14 questions.[44]

    6.  Important witnesses were never asked crucial questions, e.g. pathologist James Humes was never asked why he did not dissect the track of the back wound in President Kennedy.

    These failures all seem to indicate an investigative body that did not really want to find all the facts, or even the most important ones. Further they reveal a commission that had its mind made up early, and then tapered their inquiry in a dishonest way to shore up that very early decision.

    The last heading is called “Other Investigations.” What happens here is a recurrent ploy by Fernandez/Gamaliel. He tries to imply that somehow the Commission was correct by adding that other investigations of the case “agreed” with the original one. Yet, he cannot bring himself to say that not even the FBI agreed with the Commission since it did not buy the “Single Bullet Theory.” The Ramsey Clark Panel is mentioned, but this was not even an inquiry but was a review of the medical evidence, and it changed the location of the head wound in JFK by raising it up four inches on the skull thereby forming a second “Magic Bullet.” Because according to this panel, the head and tail of this projectile were found in the front of the car and the middle was left in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. The Rockefeller Commission was run by Warren Commission counsel David Belin and investigated only a very few elements of the crime. The House Select Committee on Assassinations was altered in midstream by the fact that its original Chief and Deputy Counsel were replaced when it was clear they were going to run a full and honest inquiry into the case.

    But further, this entry does not even mention the Schweiker-Hart report for the Church Committee. This report reviewed the performance of the FBI and CIA for the Warren Commission and found it clearly lacking to the point that, what the two bodies left out had a negative effect on the performance of the Commission. Also not mentioned by Wikipedia is the investigation of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, which surely differed in conclusions from the Commission. Finally and inexplicably, Wiki does not mention the Assassination Records Review Board that declassified tens of thousands of documents and conducted its own inquiry into the medical evidence. This inquiry concluded that the original autopsy performance left many unanswered questions about Kennedy’s death, including whether or not the photos taken now in the National Archives actually depict Kennedy’s brain.45 By deliberately leaving out these three bodies, Wikipedia/Gamaliel can falsely imply that each and every official inquiry that followed agreed or backed up the Commission.

    In the hands of Mr. Fernandez, Wikipedia has shown itself to be as bad, if not worse, than the “New York Times” on the subject of President Kennedy’s death. And it does this by using the same shameful techniques of censorship that the “Times” used.

    CTKA will continue to expose Fernandez and Wikipedia as long as they continue to misinform the public and to censor key facts about the murder of President Kennedy. We hope our readership spreads the word far and wide about these troubling practices. If Wiki cannot be trusted with the JFK case, what controversial subject in contemporary history can it be trusted with? And should it be taken seriously at all?

    Notes


    3 Wiki’s own page on the Kennedy assassination links to a 2003 Gallup poll reporting that 75% of Americans do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination#cite_note-132

    5 “Gerald Ford’s Terrible Fiction” http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

    6 See Barry Ernest’s book, The Girl on the Stairs, CreateSpace, 2011, for the most recent example.

    8 Bugliosi, Vincent. Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Norton, 2007, 1632 p. ISBN 0393045250.

    10 Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, or articles from Probe Magazine.

    11 LBJ did ultimately become involved with selecting the members and coerced most of them to join. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Walkthrough_-_Formation_of_the_Warren_Commission

    12 Gibson, Donald. “The Creation of the Warren Commission,” Probe Vol. 3 No. 4, “The Creation of the Warren Commission”

    13 Vol. 3 No. 4 p. 27).  Rostow actually proposed ‘a commission of seven or nine people … to look into the whole affair of the murder of the President.’ (Ibid)  That fall, in a staff shuffle, he went to the State Department as chairman of the Policy Planning Council at the State Department. In 1964, President Johnson gave him the additional duty of U.S. member of the Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress, with the rank of ambassador.

    “[Joseph and Stewart] were columnists with a huge reach. They were in 200 newspapers with a combined circulation of 25 million, and they wrote consistently for the “Saturday Evening Post,” and the “Washington Post.” So they had an immense reach in a country that had 170 million people, maybe 180 million people.” From a review by Eric Alterman of “I’ve Seen The Best Of It” by Joseph W. Alsop with Adam Platt, in the Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1992.

    15] The FBI took over the case from the Dallas authorities and conducted a brief investigation; the Warren Commission subsequently relied upon the FBI as its primary investigative arm. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Documents_-_FBI

    16 See Mary Ferrell Foundation for audio and transcripts of the calls with LBJ and others. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Walkthrough_-_Formation_of_the_Warren_Commission

    17 Part 9 of my Bugliosi review, Part 9, now in Reclaiming Parkland.

    18 DiEugenio, James, Lisa Pease and Judge Joe Brown The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, 2003, Feral House pp. 3-17.

    19“ The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.” HSCA Report, p. 256. Read more here: http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/failed.htm

    20 Fortas, Washington attorney and LBJ confidant since the 1930s. Mary Ferrell Foundation, Nov 29, 1:15PMPhone call between President Johnson and Abe Fortas http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0231a.htm
    LBJ and advisor Fortas bandy about several names as possible Commissioners. After mentioning some possibilities include General Norstadt and James Eastland, at the end of the call LBJ selects the seven Commissioners named later that day to serve on the President’s Commission.

    21 Member Cooper initially refused to serve also. See History Matters http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0309a.htm Cooper’s Wiki page has a limited mention of his serving on the Warren Commission, listing only, “He was a member of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy,” and at the very bottom of the page under a hidden link that simply takes the reader back to the Wiki Warren Commission page with a listing of members, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.

    22Transcript, Earl Warren Oral History Interview I, 9/21/71, by Joe B. Frantz, Internet Copy, LBJ Library, pg. 11. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Warren-E/Warren-e.PDF

    23 ibid., p. 11

    24 Lane, Mark, Plausible Denial, p. 42.

    25 Transcript of phone call of 11/29/3 between the President and Senator Richard Russell. History Matters http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0308a.htm

    26 Transcript of phone call of 11/29/63 between President Johnson and Joe Alsop. Mary Ferrell Foundation http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=838

    27 ibid.

    28 ibid., pp. 1, 2.

    29 The Assassinations, op cit, p. 224.

    30 ibid.

    31 Rothman, Howard, Presumed Guilty: Lee Harvey Oswald in the Assassination of President Kennedy, 1975. http://www.american-buddha.com/presumeguiltyintro.htm

    32 DiEugenio, James, Destiny Betrayed, pp. 96-97

    33 Meagher, Sylvia, Accessories After the Fact, pp. 65-69.

    34 Lane, Mark,Rush to Judgment, p. 9.

    35 Russell, Dick, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, pp. 126-27

    36 McKnight, Gerald, Breach of Trust, p. 295.

    37 Warren Report, titled Summary and Conclusions pp. 25-26

    38 ibid., pp. 454-69.

    39 ibid., p. 458.

    40 Marrs, Jim, Crossfire, p. 246.

    41 Horne, Doug, Inside the ARRB, Vol. V, pp. 1403-1409.

    42 “The allegation, as outlined by James Douglass in ‘JFK the Unspeakable,’ Thomas Arthur Vallee was being set up and framed as a possible patsy, had JFK been assassinated in Chicago Nov. 1, 1963. The former USMC had a basic covert operational background similar to Oswald, and appears to have been set up in a similar fashion.” Bill Kelly on the Education Forum.

    43 Brown, Walt, The Warren Omission, p. 79.

    44 Ibid, p. 260.

    45 See Washington Post 11/10/98. Also, “Investigations” Mary Ferrell Foundation http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Investigations

  • The Real Wikipedia? Part Two: Please, Mr. Wales, Remain Seated


    Part 1

    Addendum

    Part 3


    Through the Looking Glass

    A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

    ~John F. Kennedy

    Since the posting of our exposé on Wikipedia, Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?, to CTKA last July, we’ve been keeping an eye on Wikipedia’s “most proud1 author – the main gatekeeper of its Lee Harvey Oswald entry – Robert “Rob” Fernandez of Tampa, Florida (Wiki-screen-name: Gamaliel). And it seems he’s been hard at work. That is evident from a review of the changes that Gamaliel/Fernandez has made to the LHO entry during the intervening eight months. Given those elapsed months and the changes we’ve witnessed, we thought the time ripe to revisit the situation.

    To see clearly now what exactly has changed, let’s start with what’s most conspicuous. Perhaps the onset of the winter inspired a bit of bulking-up, because the most noticeable difference between Wikipedia’s LHO entry of last July and the current one (March 2011) is the number of footnotes: Whereas last July’s entry weighed in with 158 notes, the current entry shows a total of 195 – a hefty 19 per cent increase. And yet, as a quick perusal of the following table shows, the Table of Contents for the two differing LHO entries reveals very little substantive change between the summer and winter entries:

     

    Wikipedia LHO Table of Contents – Summer 2010 Wikipedia LHO Table of Contents – Winter 2011
    • 1 Biography
      • 1.1 Childhood
      • 1.2 Marine Corps
      • 1.3 Defection to the Soviet Union
      • 1.4 Dallas
      • 1.5 Attempt on life of General Walker
      • 1.6 New Orleans
      • 1.7 Mexico
      • 1.8 Return to Dallas
      • 1.9 Shootings of JFK and Officer Tippit
      • 1.10 Capture
      • 1.11 Police interrogation
      • 1.12 Death
    • 2 Official Investigations
      • 2.1 Warren Commission
      • 2.2 Ramsey Clark Panel
      • 2.3 House Select Committee
    • 3 Other investigations and dissenting theories
      • 3.1 Fictional trials
    • 4 Backyard photos
    • 5 References
    • 6 Further reading
    • 7 External links
    • 1 Biography
      • 1.1 Childhood
      • 1.2 Marine Corps
      • 1.3 Defection to the Soviet Union
      • 1.4 Dallas
      • 1.5 Attempt on life of General Walker
      • 1.6 New Orleans
      • 1.7 Mexico
      • 1.8 Return to Dallas
      • 1.9 Shootings of Kennedy and Tippit
      • 1.10 Capture
    • 2 Police interrogation
      • 2.1 Death
    • 3 Official investigations
      • 3.1 Warren Commission
      • 3.2 Ramsey Clark Panel
      • 3.3 House Select Committee
    • 4 Other investigations and dissenting theories
      • 4.1 Fictional trials
    • 5 Backyard photos
    • 6 Notes
    • 7 References
    • 8 Further reading
    • 9 External links

     

    In fact, a quick comparison of the above table reveals that the basic structure of Gamaliel’s/Fernandez’s2 LHO entry shows no substantive change whatsoever. Yes, there are two “new” sections that have been added to the article. But even a cursory review of these “new” sections reveals that they are anything but: Each has been created from former sections. The current section, 2 Police interrogation, is simply the former section, 1.11 Police jnterrogation, now renumbered; and the current section, 6 Notes, is nothing more than a recompilation of 15 source citations that have been taken from the former section, 5 References.

    Same Old “Truthiness

    But what about the 19 per cent increase in the article’s source materials? Might we expect that by increasing the citations of his source material, Fernandez might have tilted the balance of available evidence even slightly toward the light of objectivity? Could there be any possibility that a 19% increase in cited source material might translate to a corresponding increase in the article’s veracity?

    Fat chance.

    Yes. Fernandez is up to his same old tricks. He’s simply shoveling the same old… well… probably the best way to complete that thought is by reiterating a conclusion from last summer’s exposé:

    Wikipedia’s LHO entry is anything but a carefully crafted piece of disinformation.

    In other words, the entry remains the same crude model that it was eight months ago: It merely buttresses the bulk of its lies through a continuing policy of blanket censorship. Rest assured. All remains safe in Wiki-World. There is absolutely no chance that these additional source materials will ever risk “overwhelm[ing] the text” of Fernandez’s LHO entry.

    As we also noted this past July:

    … about 90% [of the LHO entry’s notes] are to the Commission, and the likes of Gerald Posner, The Dallas Morning News, and Vincent Bugliosi. There is not one footnote to the files of Jim Garrison or the depositions of the Assassination Records and Review Board. In fact, the ARRB does not exist for Gamaliel/Fernandez. Which is stunning, since they enlarged the document base on Oswald and the Kennedy case by 100%. But since much of their work discredited the Commission, it gets the back of Fernandez’s hand.

    And the situation remains much the same today. As with last summer’s version, the current Wikipedia LHO article has not a single reference to The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). This in itself is both revealing and, at the same time, unbelievably bizarre: Revealing, in that the omission of any mention of the ARRB betrays a rather transparent attempt by Fernandez to avoid any source materials that would impugn his favorite source, i.e., the 1964 Warren Commission; and unbelievably bizarre, in that the very idea that any article on Lee Harvey Oswald written in 2011 might attempt to dodge the ARRB by simply pretending as if it never existed is, well, pushing the idea of what is Orwellian beyond the extreme. Because what this tells us about the degree of contempt that Fernandez and the folks at Wikipedia have for their readership is everything we need to know: Right in line with Allen Dulles‘ famous quote that “The American people don’t read,” the folks at Wikipedia count on an ill-informed readership. For only a readership that is unaware of its own country’s history would be gullible enough to accept Fernandez’s idea of the ARRB as non-existent.

    Predictably, the overwhelming weight of source materials for Fernandez’s LHO entry still comes largely from the Warren Commission Report (WCR) and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). These source materials are filled out for the most part by the likes of Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, Max Holland, PBS Frontline, the Dallas Morning News, and (no surprise) John McAdams’ own site, The Kennedy Assassination Home Page. In other words, Fernandez – and his wiki-compadres – adhere to the same old conventional mainstream media view of the assassination, i.e., Oswald as “lone gunman.”

    So even after an increase of some 19% of cited source material, as well as the seeming addition of two “new” sections, it seems as if nothing of substance has changed. It appears that Fernandez, in line with his self-professed prideful control as a JFK assassination information censor, simply felt the need to “rearrange the furniture.” Why? We can only guess. But without a doubt, some kind of update to the Wikipedia LHO entry was long overdue. As noted in the conclusions from our exposé of this past July:

    The purpose of Wikipedia’s LHO entry[?] … [T]o keep the reader safely within the sanitized walls of the Warren Commission’s 1964 duplicities that still attempt to peg Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin.

    And judging from the changes that Fernandez has made, it would appear that he felt that those retro-fitted-1964-sanitized-walls were beginning to show the wear and tear of age. After all, we certainly had shined a spotlight on the gaping cracks. So perhaps a little spackling touch-up to the walls along with, perhaps, an eye for a fashionable Feng Shui arrangement of the furniture was in order. Yes, as it turns out, surface appearances seem to have been Fernandez’s primary concern. … Or were they?

    Are Fernandez’s recent changes merely cosmetic? Let’s pull back the curtain and take a closer look. Perhaps in doing so we’ll continue to shed light on important details that Fernandez (and those at Wikipedia who continue to support a policy of blanket censorship in regard to the JFK assassination) apparently would like to remain shrouded in darkness – at least, that is, for the uninitiated Wikipedia reader.

    Here Today…

    I think that one of the great strengths of the open collaborative approach is the fast and powerful destruction of untenable conspiracy theories. It is quite easy to watch a pseudo-documentary like “Loose Change” and to find it compelling, until you back up and do some homework with the help of sites like Wikipedia. ~Jimbo Wales,[1]02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC); from the “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Page” of campaigns.wikia3

    So what exactly has changed within Wikipedia’s LHO entry since last summer?

    In order to answer that question, i.e., for the purpose of comparison, one needs to have access to the version of the LHO entry from last July. And quite fortunately for our readership, we took Daniel Brandt’s prescient warning concerning Fernandez’s reputation to heart. Recall that Brandt went to the trouble of saving an old webpage of Fernandez’s that Fernandez had forgotten to take down. Why? :

    “I moved it to my site as soon as I discovered it, because I knew he would whitewash it.” explains Brandt. (emphasis added)

    But certainly Wikipedia must have the means of preventing any one of its administrators from “whitewashing” its data. Right?

    As it turns out, Fernandez’s reputation for “whitewashing” appears to be the perfect fit for the policies of Wikipedia’s central governing bureaucracy – the Wiki-anti-elitist-elite – which, the reader may recall, number no more than 1.4% of all active registered users.4 Back in the day, when Wikipedia had a “circulation” of no more than 5000 unique daily visitors,5 and so had yet to appear at the top of just about every Google search,6 Jimmy Wales was already thinking ahead to the problems of control over the data of his “people’s encyclopedia.” And dreaming about a “cabal membership” and the special powers it would retain:

    I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of “old timer” or “karma points”. This would empower some shadowy mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible for newbies. Editing the homepage for example.7 (emphasis added)

    Yes, granting special editing privileges to a small select group of experienced users in order that Wikipedia might then be able to protect itself from, say, malicious cases of vandalism would be hard to argue against. But what if that same privileged group of elect administrators – Jimmy Wales’ own “shadowy mysterious elite group” – were to use their special editing capabilities to, say, permanently delete compromising information that manifestly exposes “the project” as one whose policies support dissemination of disinformation? Or, viewed from another angle, what if the elite members of Wales’ privileged “cabal” were to exercise a form of permanent suppression of information by using their special editing powers to selectively toss anything that they wish to keep from their readers down the Wiki-memory-hole?

    Now that kind of censorship would certainly be an attractive feature to a supposedly “open collaborative approach” that surreptitiously seeks a “fast and powerful destruction of [so-called] untenable conspiracy theories.”

    Undoubtedly, Wikipedia, now too, makes Cass Sunstein “most proud.”

    Going…

    Just how large and empowered would Wales’ proposed “shadowy mysterious elite group” now be? That’s anyone’s guess. As to their numbers, it’s a safe bet that Wales’ exclusive “cabal” is composed of an even more selective group of Wiki-admins than the governing bureaucracy we have called “the Wiki-anti-elitist-elite”8 – in other words, just a small fraction of the less than 1.4% of all active registered users. As to the question of empowerment, one must look to ultimate objectives. For in order for Jimmy Wales to achieve his dreamed-of control over information while at the same time keeping up the surface appearance of egalitarianism, he needs to rely upon a very small select group – his inner circle – to ensure such authoritarian control. It is to such a small select group that Wales undoubtedly entrusts the finality of decisions on all Wikipedia content.

    Would such finality on decision-making include the outright whitewashing of data? You bet. And based upon our own observations of changes to the Wikipedia LHO page – yes, we have witnessed information from that page disappear down the Wiki-memory-hole – it’s also a very safe bet that Fernandez has found his way into Wales’ elite inner-circle where “cabal membership” has its privileges.

    So, given both Wikipedia’s and Fernandez’s reputation for censorship, we were not about to have our diligent efforts in exposing the blatant lies of Wikipedia’s LHO entry “whitewashed” away. In line with the old adage, “Forewarned is forearmed,” we took the precaution of backing up the LHO entry from last July. In fact, our Wikipedia exposé from last July does not reference the current Wikipedia LHO entry, which, over time, is (of course) subject to change. Instead, all references to Wikipedia’s LHO page within the CTKA article of last summer are now a “frozen snapshot in time” of the LHO entry from last July.9

    You see, anticipating Fernandez’s penchant for “whitewashing,” we backed up Wikipedia’s LHO page from last July (–July 5th, to be exact) before we posted our original article. It will soon become clear to the reader just how important that backed-up version of the LHO entry from last July truly is in exposing Fernandez’s (and thus Wikipedia’s) hand.

    Going…

    Of all of the lies that Fernandez expected his LHO entry readers to swallow – whether lies of commission or omission – undoubtedly the most egregious that we had brought to light was his deliberate planting of outright false evidence against Oswald. Last July, as we combed through the Wikipedia LHO entry in order to shed light on its failings, we came across the following inset and accompanying caption buried about half-way through the article and on the far-right side of the page:

     

    200px CE795

    Fake selective service (draft) card in the name of Alek James Hidell, found on Oswald when arrested. A.Hidell was the name used on both envelope and order slip to buy the murder weapon (see CE 773) [114], and A. J. Hidell was the alternate name on the post office box rented by Oswald, to which the weapon was sent.[115]

     

    Here, Fernandez asserts that Oswald’s Dallas P. O. box allowed for the delivery of the alleged murder weapons because the alias to which these weapons were sent – A.J. Hidell – was supposedly on Oswald’s application for his Dallas P.O. box as an alternate name. But even Fernandez’s beloved Warren Report could not save him here. And he had to have known it. Because Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box application, which the Warren Report catalogues as “Cadigan Exhibit No. 13,”10 contains no alternate names whatsoever. What this all means is that the weapons shipped to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box by Klein’s Sporting Goods could not have been retrieved by Oswald because existing U.S. Post Office regulations would not have permitted him to do so.

    So what did Fernandez do? He simply planted false evidence. As seen in the above inset, he tried to pass off Oswald’s application for his New Orleans P. O. box – an application that did have both A.J. Hidell and Marina Oswald listed as alternates – as Oswald’s Dallas P.O. application. This “switcheroo” ostensibly allowed Fernandez to get around the pesky problem of USPS regulations that would have made it impossible for Oswald to have retrieved the alleged murder weapons. And Fernandez’s calculated planning behind such planting of false evidence becomes apparent when one considers that:

    • By placing this outright lie within an inset to the entry, Fernandez was, for all intents and purposes, “hiding it in plain sight.” Why? Given our own empirically reasoned conclusion that Fernandez has by now found his way into the exclusive membership of Jimmy Wales’ “shadowy mysterious elite group,” then it follows that Fernandez must be keenly aware of the demographics of his readership: Most visits to Wikipedia are “bounces,” i.e., one page views only. And each of those single-page-visits – made mostly by “childless people under 35 [years of age]… who browse from school and work”11 – average less than one minute. So on a first (and, probably, only) read-through, it’s a safe bet that most of the above cited demographic will be quickly scanning most Wikipedia articles that they view. They will not be reading for depth. (Not that you’re likely to find any depth in any Wikipedia article.) Unless a sidebar to an article is specifically designed for allure, whether through color, size, or some other eye-catching scheme, then, the readership that constitutes Wikipedia’s demographic is not at all likely to focus much attention on a black-and-white inset and caption.
    • Add to this the fact that the eye reads left-to-right and then quickly back to the left, and the likelihood that Wikipedia readers might take the time to actually read this inset – placed strategically half-way through the article and on the far-right of the page – diminishes even further.
    • Out of the small percentage of Wikipedia readers who might happen to take the time to read the above inset, how many would then be likely to check out Fernandez’s assertion that “A. J. Hidell was the alternate name on the post office box rented by Oswald, to which the weapon was sent[115]” by actually linking to the footnote?
    • And then, given this same demographic, how many of those readers do you suppose would link through to the cited primary source material – what Fernandez claims is CE 697 (i.e., Commission Exhibit 697)?
    • And out of that acutely culled readership, how many who actually link through to what Fernandez claims is CE 697 would be perceptive enough to realize the game that Fernandez is playing here? That is: How many would be discerning enough to understand that Fernandez’s cited source material is, first of all, not CE 697 at all, but in fact CE 818 and CE 819 (though these Commission Exhibits do in fact appear on page 697 of Volume XVII) and secondly, that these Commission Exhibits have nothing at all to do with Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box, but are instead for his New Orleans P. O. box – the P.O. box to which the alleged murder weapons were never sent.

    You get the picture. Fernandez is well aware of his readership’s demographic and obviously and contemptuously takes them for dupes. And when the jig is up, the game is over, what does he do? He pulls a “Minitrue.”

    Down the Wiki-memory-hole.

    …Gone!

    Fernandez simply wiped out any trace of evidence that he had planted that lie about Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box. But not before his hand was forced.

    Yes, we were keeping an eye on Fernandez. And we were curious as to how this “most proud” author would respond – if at all – to having his lie exposed for all to see. The narrative of events immediately following the posting of our exposé to CTKA provides further insight into the inner-workings of Wikipedia, Fernandez, and Jimmy Wales’ “elite cabal.” The reader should bear in mind that even though we had already taken the precaution of backing-up our own copy of Wikipedia’s LHO entry to the CTKA server (from July 5th, 2010), when our exposé was first posted to CTKA last July 15th, we still intentionally linked directly to the Wikipedia site for all references to the LHO entry. We then sat back and watched.

    As judged by a number of the entries to the most widely-read message boards, it seemed that the article had generated enough interest that some were prompted to actually try their own hand at directly editing Wikipedia’s LHO entry. No doubt, this spike in activity served to focus the spotlight with an even greater intensity, not only upon Fernandez’s policy of blanket censorship, but also upon his outright planting of false evidence. In was only a matter of days before we began to take note of Fernandez’s response.

    The first thing that we noticed was that Fernandez began to play with an arbitrary renumbering of the LHO entry’s footnotes. Why? Keep in mind that, because we had at first decided to link directly to Wikipedia for all references to its LHO entry, a renumbering of these footnote references within that LHO entry would place them “out of synch” with the former numbering in our article, making it difficult – if not impossible – for CTKA readers to follow the trail of evidence that we had carefully presented in exposing Fernandez’s planting of false evidence. In other words, by changing the numbering of key references to the Dallas P.O. box within the Wikipedia LHO entry, e.g., footnote 115, Fernandez was now, in effect, forcing CTKA readers to link to information that had absolutely nothing to do with Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box and the delivery of the alleged murder weapons. Was Fernandez covering his tracks?

    It certainly appeared that way. And we weren’t about to let him get away with it. So after about three weeks of watching him play with the renumbering of footnotes, and having already backed-up the Wikipedia LHO entry from July 5th, 2010, we simply updated the CTKA article to now directly reference that backed-up version of the LHO entry that we held on the CTKA server. Thus, the LHO footnote numbers were now once again “in synch” with the July 5th, 2010 version that our exposé referenced. An attempt to confuse CTKA readers through a renumbering of footnotes was simply not going to work. Fernandez would have to try another tack. Which, of course, he did.

    But even with his alternate tack, Fernandez still – as we shall see – comes up short. And quite predictably, though Fernandez did decide to keep the inset with reference to Oswald’s “fake selective service (draft) card in the name of Alek James Hidell,” all reference to A.J. Hidell as an alternate name on the Dallas P.O. box has – pfft – now vanished from the Wikipedia LHO entry.

    Down the Wiki-memory-hole.

     

    The Fast and Powerful Destruction of Untenable Conspiracy Theories Cover-Ups

    Here’s how the inset and caption now appear:

    200px CE795

    Fake selective service (draft) card in the name of Alek James Hidell, found on Oswald when arrested. A.Hidell was the name used on both envelope and order slip to buy the murder weapon (see CE 773),[138] and A. J. Hidell was the alternate name on the New Orleans post office box rented June 11, 1963, by Oswald.[139] Both the murder weapon and the pistol in Oswald’s possession at arrest had earlier been shipped (at separate times) to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 2915, as ordered by “A. J. Hidell”.[140]

     

    Clearly, when Fernandez here cites A.J. Hidell as an alternate name, he is now not being deceptive because he is now correctly referring to Oswald’s New Orleans P.O. box – the P.O. box that had both A.J. Hidell and Marina as alternate names, but also the box to which the alleged murder weapons were never sent. By doing so, Fernandez, for all intents and purposes, has backed down. And though there’s nary a trace of his having done so, his planted false evidence against Oswald (i.e., reference to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box as the one with A.J. Hidell as an alternate) has now been removed from the Wikipedia LHO entry.

    But does this removal of planted false evidence mean that Jimmy Wales’ “people’s encyclopedia” might now be turning over a new leaf? Would Wales – with Fernandez as his entrusted LHO gatekeeper – ever possibly let slide what he considers “one of the greatest strengths of [his] open collaborative approach?” –i.e., “the fast and powerful destruction of untenable conspiracy theories?”

    Observing how Fernandez proceeds to cover his tracks tells us all that we need to know about how “untenable” he and his boss Wales consider JFK “conspiracy theories.” Because the problem that presents itself now to Fernandez (and Wales’ “open collaborative approach”) is this:

    • If Hidell’s name was not an alternate to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box, and USPS regulations would have prevented delivery of any item with an addressee not listed on the box (either as a primary name or alternate), then how could Oswald have retrieved those alleged murder weapons sent from Klein’s Sporting Goods and addressed to A.J. Hidell at Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box?
    • And without the ability to have retrieved those alleged murder weapons from his Dallas P.O. box, then how could Oswald be tied to the murders of either JFK or Officer Tippit?

    Convenient (not to mention suspicious) Mimicry

    So how does Fernandez manage to get around this problem? Apparently, the same way his beloved Warren Commission did: Following their lead, Fernandez, too, lies and misleads. Take note of the last sentence of the above revised caption:

    Both the murder weapon and the pistol in Oswald’s possession at arrest had earlier been shipped (at separate times) to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 2915, as ordered by “A. J. Hidell”.[140]

    Here Fernandez suggests by implication that Oswald must have retrieved the alleged murder weapons from his Dallas P.O. box, even though there is absolutely no evidence that he in fact did so, and even though strong evidence in fact exists that he could not have. But to uncover that strong evidence, one must upend the Wikipedia demographic by actually following Fernandez’s planted footnote 140, which currently reads as follows:

    This box had been rented by Oswald in Dallas under his own name of Oswald, but postal inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post office testified that a notice of receipt for any package would have been left in a Dallas P.O. box, no matter who the listed-recipient for the package was, and thereafter anyone presenting the notice for the package to the office window, demonstrating they had access to the box, would have been able to receive any package for the box, without identification. See http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0073a.htm Warren Report p. 121 of 912.

    Here we can clearly observe Fernandez’s means of retreat, because though footnote 140 unequivocally states that the “box had been rented by Oswald in Dallas under his own name,” Fernandez then proceeds to fall back on the Warren Commission’s own means for tying the alleged murder weapons to Oswald, i.e., “postal inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post Office,” who effectively testified that despite USPS regulations,12 USPS would have delivered the alleged murder weapons to Oswald’s P.O. box, and Oswald must have retrieved them.

    To support his summary of Inspector Holmes’ testimony before the Warren Commission, Fernandez provides a link to page 121 of the Warren Commission Report (WCR). The pertinent paragraph from the Report that Fernandez has summarized in his footnote 140 reads as follows:

    It is not known whether the application for P.O. box 2915 [Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box] listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 14, 1963. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post Office testified, however, that when a package was received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether the name on the package is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail through that box. The person having access to the box then takes the notice to the window and is given the package. Ordinarily, Inspector Holmes testified, identification is not requested because it is assumed that the person with the notice is entitled to the package.13

    If we are to believe the above WCR summary, then how can one account for the fact that, for another box Oswald rented, “the portion of the application [i.e., Oswald’s] which lists names of persons, other than applicant, entitled to receive mail” was not “thrown away after the box was closed” – as the above WCR summary states – but is in fact an exhibit preserved and catalogued by the Commission itself?14

    But beyond this glaring inconsistency, in order to fully appreciate the extent of Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes’ false testimony that the above summary provides, one must first grasp two straightforward USPS regulations that were in effect at the time, and which Harry D. Holmes, in his capacity as a US Postal Inspector had to have known about:

    • USPS regulation no. 355.111 states that: “Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed ‘addressee unknown’ and returned to sender.”15
    • USPS regulation 846.53a In 1963, it was legal to ship firearms through the US mail as long as both shipper and receiver were in compliance with this regulation, which required the completion of USPS form 2162. The Post Office processing the shipment of firearms was required to retain the associated completed and signed 2162 forms for a period of four years.16

    If we are to believe Holmes, then, when it came to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box, both of the above USPS regulations were simply ignored. A weapons delivery from Klein’s Sporting Goods, Chicago, Illinois to A.J. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915? And A.J. Hidell’s name is not on the application for P.O. Box 2915? Not a problem according to Holmes: “[W]hen a package was received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether the name on the package is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail through that box.” And as far as any identification for retrieval of the alleged weapons, well according to the above WCR summary, Holmes tells us that “[o]rdinarily… , identification is not requested because it is assumed that the person with the notice is entitled to the package.” In other words USPS regulation no. 355.111 was routinely ignored by Holmes and his staff of Dallas postal workers.

    As to regulation 846.53a, the above WCR summary – as well as all of Holmes’ actually WCR testimony itself17 – simply ignores it altogether! And can it be any wonder why? Either Holmes would have had to have produced the retained 2162 forms related to the shipments from Klein’s or he would have had another song and dance on his hands. And from the looks of the results of their partnering with him,18 neither David Belin nor Wesley Liebeler seemed to have much confidence in Holmes’ “stage presence.” So, as far as regulation 846.53a went, it looks as if it was “mums the word.” From the get-go.

    Thus, whereas we would normally expect that the testimony of a government officer would uphold regulations, here Inspector Holmes’ testimony is put to the exact opposite purpose, i.e., to show that, in the case of delivery and receipt of items for Oswald’s P.O. box, USPS regulations were effectively ignored. How convenient. (Not to mention suspicious.) Especially when one has ample insight into the motivation of Inspector Holmes’ “testimony.”

    The Ministry of Silly Dances

    But before taking a tumble down the rabbit hole that leads to a greater appreciation of US Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes’ motivation, a few side-steps are in order.

    As we’ve already taken note, it’s not very likely that the average Wikipedia reader would have even read through to the details of the Fernandez’s current footnote 140. And further, that if they had come this far, Fernandez expects his readers to accept Inspector Holmes’ testimony as the final word on the matter. So in the interest of exposing what must be one of the most untenable of untenable cover-ups, let’s continue to buck such Wiki-complacency. To get to the source of the matter, let’s not settle for the mere summary of a summary of Holmes’ testimony as Wikipedia and Fernandez would have us do. Let’s instead inspect a portion of Inspector Holmes’ actual testimony.19 Specifically, let’s focus in on the following telling exchanges between Holmes and Assistant Counsel to the Commission, Wesley Liebeler:

    Mr. Liebeler: So the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail in it?

    Mr. Holmes: Actually, the window where you get the mail is all the way around the corner and in a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory – I am surmising now because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man [i.e., the P.O. box holder] would take this card out [of his P.O. box]. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, “I got this out of my box.” And he [i.e., the postal clerk] says, “What box?” “Box number so and so.” They look in a bin where they have this box by numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.20 (emphasis added)

    Notice the leading questioning that Liebeler uses here. Erle Stanley Gardner would probably have thought twice before allowing any of his fictional courtroom counsel such license. Clearly, even before Holmes answers Liebeler’s question about Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box, we already know what his answer will be. And even more clearly, Holmes’ cued response is contradicted by U.S. Postal regulation no. 355.111, which unequivocally states that “Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed ‘addressee unknown’ and returned to sender.”

    What this tells us is that Holmes – whose authoritative position as a US Postal Inspector required him to oversee the correct execution of USPS regulations – had to have known that he was being evasive and misleading in his testimony. What immediately ensues is most interesting. Almost as if grabbing at the proverbial fig leaf for some form of cover, Liebeler and Holmes then engage in the following curious dance of words:

    Mr. Liebeler: Ordinarily, they won’t even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
    Mr. Holmes: Yes, sir.
    Mr. Liebeler: Is it very possible that that in fact is what happened in this case?
    Mr. Holmes: That is the theory. I would assume that is what happened.
    Mr. Liebeler: On the other hand, is it possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
    Mr. Holmes:
    Could have been. And on the other hand he had this identification of Hidell’s in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way he got it.21 (emphasis added)

    Again, quite clearly, Liebeler establishes himself as the leading partner in this courtroom minuet apparently designed not to reveal but to obscure. Because any deposition of a Postal Inspector taken by any reputable counsel about Oswald’s ability to have retrieved those alleged murder weapons from his Dallas P.O. box would want to fully explore the USPS regulations in place at the time. The questions that should have been committed to the record during Liebeler’s deposition of Holmes, then, are questions such as: What are the regulations that govern the delivery and retrieval of items from a USPS P.O. box? What about the delivery and retrieval of firearms? In regard to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box 2915, were these regulations correctly followed? If not, then why not? And so on …

    But as far as Liebeler and Holmes were concerned, direct questions such as these would have been steps in the wrong direction. They obviously had a much different pas de deux in mind: One that waltzed around real issues by offering “theory,” assumption, and hypothetical conjecture about Oswald’s actions in regard to his alleged retrieval of weapons from his Dallas P.O. box. And what amazes most here is this pair’s absolute brazenness – one that bears no shame whatsoever – about passing off “theory,” assumption, and conjecture as an actual sealing of Oswald’s guilt.

    Could Holmes have shown any more eagerness in following Liebeler’s lead than he does in the above exchange? Though Liebeler does not explicitly say so, his question to Holmes (with its built-in telegraph-cued response) – that no identification would be required of someone retrieving an item from a P.O. box – strongly insinuates that, in the case of Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box, existing USPS regulations would have either been ignored or overlooked (by Holmes and his Dallas P.O. staff), thus allowing for Oswald’s retrieval of the alleged murder weapons. At the same time, Liebeler’s clever twist of words here shields Holmes from any immediate accusation that Holmes was at all derelict in his duty as a US Postal Inspector. And without any hesitation, Holmes grabs for that shield and runs with it: “Yes, sir,” he accedes. He then practically trips over himself in his apparent eagerness to please his inquisitor. Though Holmes’ responses are merely “theory,” assumption, and conjecture – all of which could not possibly stand as any meaningful evidence against Oswald’s retrieval of the alleged murder weapons – Holmes finally and triumphantly asserts his verdict: “Either way he [Oswald] got it [i.e., the Mannlicher Carcano – the alleged murder weapon – from his Dallas P.O. box].” (!)

    Talk about circular thinking that leads to a presupposed conclusion. Apparently, as with his command of USPS regulations, logic was not a strong suit for US Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes.

    But there’s more to Holmes’ story than is revealed in his silly dances with Commission Assistant Counsel Wesley J. Liebeler. Much more.

    The Many Faces of Harry D. Holmes

    At the JFK Lancer Conference of November 1997, Ian Griggs, a retired Ministry of Defence Police Officer, noted JFK assassination researcher, and a founding member of the UK research group, Dealey Plaza UK, presented a case study of Holmes entitled The Four Faces of Harry D. Holmes. In his presentation, Griggs makes a fairly convincing case for Holmes having greater knowledge of and contact with Oswald than we might reasonably expect from a Dallas Postal Inspector.

    What supports Griggs’ case? Firstly, Griggs admits to having benefitted from the earlier work of Sylvia Meagher and George Michael Evica, both of whom had written about Holmes’ work as an FBI informant. And as Griggs points out, though there is no documentary evidence that explicitly ties Holmes to the FBI, there is one document in particular – CE 1152 – that upon close examination does in fact reveal that in 1963 Holmes was indeed working clandestinely as an informant for Hoover’s FBI. 22 “Confidential Informant T-7” must be Holmes, says Griggs, because CE 1152 “contains many precise details which can only have been known to Harry D. Holmes in his capacity as a Dallas Postal Inspector.”

    There’s only one little aside here: CE 1152 primarily refers to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. box 6225 (which Oswald had rented from November 1, 1963 through December 31, 1963). Only in passing does CD 1152 mention Oswald’s P.O. box 2915 – the box to which the alleged murder weapons were said to have been sent. And this passing mention is of no real consequence in regard to Holmes as an FBI informant relative to Oswald’s P.O. Box 2915:

    Informant [Confidential Informant T-7] concluded by saying that on November 24, 1963, OSWALD admitted renting P.O. Box 6225 and P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. He also admitted to informant that he had rented P.O. Box 30061 in New Orleans, Louisiana. OSWALD did not make any mention to informant concerning his use of this box nor did he admit receiving a gun at any time through any of the aforementioned Post Office Boxes.

    The point being made here is that proving that Holmes must be “Confidential Informant T-7” does not directly connect Holmes’ surveillance of Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 2915 – the one to which the alleged murder weapons were supposed to have been sent. And without such a connection, then the significance of Holmes’ surveillance of Oswald both in regard to time and place is significantly reduced.

    Other researchers have, however, made a case for Holmes being “Dallas confidential informant T-2” referred to within Special Agent James Hosty’s23 report of September 10, 1963:

    On April 21, 1963 Dallas confidential informant T-2 advised that LEE H. OSWALD of Dallas, Texas was in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to T-2, OSWALD had a plackard [sic] around his neck reading “Hands off Cuba Viva Fidel”.24

    Now if Holmes is also indeed Hosty’s mysterious “confidential informant T-2,” then this raises the question: How, in the entirety of his two depositions taken before the Commission, could Holmes not have provided more telling information in regard to the delivery of weapons to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 2915? After all, if Holmes had been keeping such a careful watch over Oswald and his P.O. Box 2915 in the spring of ’63, then how did he and his staff miss the delivery of a revolver and an Italian carbine to that same box? These questions aside, from CD 1152 alone it is evident that Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes was in fact an FBI informant – at least in regard to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 6225. And this very fact, especially when viewed in light of his silence on the issue of USPS regulation 846.53a and the corresponding lack of any 2162 forms that would have detailed exactly who had retrieved the alleged murder weapons from P.O. Box 2915, serves to taint his testimony. –Severely.

    But wait. There’s even more.

    According to his own testimony, Holmes played an essential part in the investigation of the postal money order that Oswald was alleged to have drawn in order to purchase the alleged murder weapon, i.e., the Mannlicher Carcano. On Saturday morning of 11/23/63 – less than 24 hours after Kennedy’s death and just hours after the Dallas police had announced finding an Italian rifle which they had designated as the murder weapon – Holmes sent his secretary out “to purchase about a half dozen books on outdoor-type magazines such as Field and Stream, with the thought that I might locate this gun to identify it, and I did.”25 Holmes then took a keen interest in attempting to tie the Mannlicher Carcano to Oswald by tracing the money order that had been used to purchase the rifle.26 That postal money order was finally identified as order no. 2,202,130,462, with a corresponding postmark (from the envelope on which it was sent) of Mar 12 10:30 am Dallas, Tex. 12.

    But there’s just one small problem with that postal money order that Harry D. Holmes worked so diligently at locating: Postal records show that the money order was purchased on the morning of March 12, 1963 between the hours of 8:00 am – when that post office opened – and 10:30 am – the time of the postmarked envelope. And work records from his employer at that time, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc., show that Oswald was at work – present and accounted for – during that very time.27

    Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole

    The next items, taken from Holmes’ own Warren Commission testimony, are simply beyond the bizarre:

    • Holmes witnessed the assassination from the 5th floor of the Terminal Annex Building – the site of his Dealey Plaza office – with the aid of binoculars.28
    • Holmes, by the invitation of Capt. Will Fritz, was one of the few people permitted in the room during Oswald’s final interrogation on Sunday morning, 11/24/63. Moments after this final interrogation, Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas Police Headquarters, while surrounded by a phalanx of Dallas’ finest as he was being moved to the county jail.29
    • Under questioning by Commission Assistant Counsel David Belin, Holmes produced one of the infamous “Wanted for Treason” posters, which, according to Holmes had been obtained from one of the postal collection boxes. When Belin requested that the poster be marked as an exhibit, Holmes replied that he wanted to keep the original. The commission complied with Holmes’ request, marking a photocopy of Holmes’ original poster as “Holmes Exhibit 5” and returning the original to Holmes.30

    Clearly, and as judged by his own testimony, Harry D. Holmes’ interest in the JFK assassination supersedes what we might normally have expected of a US Postal Inspector. And when this apparently eccentric interest is coupled with the proof of his being an FBI informant, together with his total silence concerning USPS regulation 846.53a and related form 2165 in regard to Oswald’s Dallas P.O. Box 2195, then the picture that takes shape is one of his cooperative involvement in a cover-up.

    But don’t ever expect to find such information within that “sum of all knowledge,” Wikipedia. Because such information might tend to bring about the fast and powerful destruction of untenable cover-ups.

    I Can See Clearly Now

    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    ~Inner Party member O’Brien in George Orwell’s 1984

    Jimmy Wales would have us “Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all knowledge.”

    “That’s what we’re doing,”31 he insists.

    – Really Mr. Wales?

    As we have seen, both through his own statements as well as through the actions of Fernandez – a Wiki-admin obviously empowered with the privileges of “karma points” granted exclusively to “cabal membership,” Wales’ idea of “free access to the sum of all knowledge” in reality turns out to be “free access to [any information that my own “shadowy mysterious elite group” and I deem to be an acceptable part of] the sum of all knowledge.”

    In other words, as far as Wikipedia goes, everything apparently hinges on the question of control. The control of the past and the future through present illusion. Through the Looking Glass.

    Imagine such a world? The very idea that Wales and his own “shadowy mysterious elite group” of information brown-shirts could ever impose any kind of dictatorial control over the free-flow of information is absurdity itself. No, Wales supposed “control” is, in reality, trompe-l’oeil, appearance, illusion, pseudo-control. Because, as we have demonstrated through these exposés, real information is out there, available for all who demonstrate the tenacity and discernment necessary for finding it; for all with that desire to become empowered by its truth. Those creaking-cracking Wiki-walls offer no real resistance to the resolute. Yes, ultimately, Wales and his “cabal” are powerless to staunch the free flow of information that leads to such authentic empowerment.

    What Jimmy Wales and his elitist cabal do count on, however, is the game of numbers, the demographics. Gleaming most proudly at his baby – the 27 volume Warren Commission Report – Allen Dulles32 is said to have gloated, “The American people don’t read.” And though Wales and company no doubt dream about the possibility of a functionally illiterate America, it seems evident that they’ll settle for a nation of “one-page bouncers.” That is where the attack and assault upon knowledge will continue to be waged: Upon pounding waves of superficially trivial data, all equally valid and valued, all queued up and ready for presentation with the same safe “neutral point of view” designed to eradicate any connection to anything having any genuine cultural depth or politically empowering meaning, and with each viewer of the assault inured to his separation of what has been taken from him: inquisitiveness, discovery, critical reasoning, and even perhaps, an understanding of his own country’s history and thus his true place in the world.

    Public education is key. Is it any wonder then that the country is witnessing the beginnings of what is arguably the biggest assault ever in its history upon public employee unions? –which includes the livelihoods and futures of just about every public school teacher in the nation? But make no mistake here. Because though it should now be apparent that it’s “open season” upon public school teachers in America, they themselves are not the ultimate target, but simply a means to an end. The real battle here is against pupils, parents, families. And though there is certainly cause for hope in empowering the resolute-to-be, there is at the same time at least as much cause for concern about those who would deny the resolute-to-be their means to ever truly be.

    Can you ever imagine JFK and his administration being associated with the likes of “No Child Left Behind,” or its current successor “Race to the Top?” (If, without any hesitation, you’ve answered in the affirmative, then you’re either too young to remember or you’re now one of the inured.) –That’s how much this country has changed since his abrupt removal through state execution on 11/22/63.

    But ironically, it’s JFK – not Dulles, Wales, his “elite cabal,” or even Barack Obama or Arne Duncan – who has the final word here, because what JFK has to say about the true nature of that supposed “open collaborative project,” “people’s encyclopedia,” “sum of all knowledge,” is this:

    A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

    Through its policy of blanket censorship, its misleading presentation of evidence, its planting of false evidence, and then the hiding of its withdrawal of that false evidence – all of which we have demonstrated in regard to the Wikipedia’s coverage of Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination – it follows that Wikipedia is a source of (dis)information that, evidently, fears letting its readers “judge the truth and falsehood in an open market.”

    Thus it follows: Wikipedia fears an educated readership.

    –An encyclopedia that “fears an educated readership,” isn’t that a contradiction of terms? You bet.

    “Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.”

    – Really Mr. Wales?

    “Will the real Wikipedia please stand up?”

    Mr. Wales, we understand. You may remain seated.

     


    Notes

    1. from Gamaliel‘s/Fernandez’s Wiki-user page: “What I’m proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article (broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to witness insanity firsthand, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense.”

    2. From here on out, we’ll use the real name – Fernandez

    3. Please see: http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

    4. For a detailed explanation of how this less than 1.4% figure was arrived at, please see section IV: Poking Around the Hive within Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?

    5. i.e., October, 18, 2001

    6. Current estimates – March 2011 – rank Wikipedia as the 8th most visited site in the world, with upwards of 8 million unique daily visitors. (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

    7. Jimmy Wales, A proposal for the new software, memo of October, 18, 20011

    8. Ibid. (section IV: Poking Around the Hive within Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?)

    9. We invite the reader to compare last July’s LHO entry with the current entry, i.e., as of March 2011.

    10. WCH, Vol. XIX, p. 286.

    11. Ibid. (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

    12. U.S. Postal regulation no. 355.111 clearly states that “Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed ‘addressee unknown’ and returned to sender.”

    13. WCR, p.121.

    14. WCH, Vol. XIX, p. 286. See also the New Orleans application at: Vol. XVII, p. 697

    15. John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald, (Quasar Books, 2003), p. 453

    16. John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald, (Quasar Books, 2003), p. 452

    17. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes’ complete testimony to the Warren Commission is found in WCH, Volume VII, pp. 289 – 308 (taken by Assistant Counsel, David Belin on April 2, 1964) and pp. 525 – 530 (taken by Assistant Counsel, Wesley Liebeler on July 23, 1964).

    18. Ibid., WCH, Vol. VII, pp. 289 – 308 (taken by Assistant Counsel, David Belin on April 2, 1964) and pp. 525 – 530 (taken by Assistant Counsel, Wesley Liebeler on July 23, 1964).

    19. Ibid.

    20. WCH, Vol. VII, p. 528.

    21. Ibid.

    22. WCH, Vol. XXII, pp. 185 – 186.

    23. Yes, the very same FBI SA James Hosty, Jr. who admitted to destroying a note that Lee Harvey Oswald had dropped off at the Dallas FBI office days prior to the JFK assassination.

    24. Commission Document 11, p. 2.

    25. WCH, Vol VII, p.294. Actually, the ad which Holmes did identify was from the November 1963 issue of Field and Stream, whereas the Commission finally settled on Oswald’s use of the ad from the February 1963 issue of The American Rifleman.

    26. Please see WCH, Vol. VII, pp. 293- 296.

    27. Please see WCH, Vol. XXIII, p. 605. Further, as Armstrong points out, in order to have completed his morning errand of March 12, 1963, Oswald would first have needed to walk 11 blocks from his place of employment to get to the post office where he allegedly purchased the postal money order. And then, the postmark zone 12 indicates that Oswald would have to have walked several miles west in order to have mailed it.

    28. WCH, Vol. VII, pp. 290 – 292.

    29. WCH, Vol. VII, pp. 296 – 301.

    30. WCH, Vol. VII, p. 307.

    31. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds, Slashdot.com interview with Wales, July 28, 2004.

    32. For more on Dulles and the Warren Commission, don’t miss Jim DiEugenio’s A Comprehensive Review of Reclaiming History, Pt. 8: Bugliosi Hearts the Warren Commission: or how the author learned to like Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford and John McCloy (now in Reclaiming Parkland).

  • The Real Wikipedia? Part Two Addendum: Fernandez and the .38 Smith and Wesson


    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3


    Rob Fernandez, aka Gamaliel, is about as ignorant – and arrogant – on the JFK case as other JFK Wikipedia contributors. He has apparently implicitly trusted the likes of disinformationist extraordinaire John McAdams on several matters dealing with this very complex murder. As shown above, this trust backfired on him with the mail order dealings about the rifle allegedly used to murder President Kennedy. What is ironic though is that Fernandez seems to think that he is skating on solid ice when dealing with the weapon used to allegedly kill Officer J. D. Tippit. This is the result of pure ignorance on his part. For the issue of how and if this .38 Smith and Wesson revolver got to Oswald’s post office box is fraught with problems. Let us educate Gamaliel with information he will not find on John McAdams’ web site.

    On October 19, 1962 George Rose and Company of Los Angeles (aka Seaport Traders), ordered 500 of this type of revolver from Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods in Montreal. These were shipped to Century Arms in Vermont and then to Los Angles on January 3, 1963. (WC Vol. 7, pgs. 373-75) Once in LA, Seaport sent the weapons to be modified in Van Nuys by gunsmith M. L. Johnson. (ibid, p. 375)

    The Warren Commission states that Seaport Traders was sent a coupon along with a ten-dollar cash deposit from one A. J. Hidell at PO box 2915 in Dallas to order one of these revolvers. (WC Exhibit 790) According to the Commission, one Emma Vaughn at Seaport filled the order on March 20, 1963. The order was sent via Railway Express Agency (REA) to Mr. Hidell. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 482)

    This is where the story gets quite interesting. For REA was the forerunner to the modern private mail services United Parcel Service and Federal Express. So the first question then becomes: Why would you ship through a private mail company to a USPS post office box? Because, for example, both UPS and FedEx are considered competitors, the USPS will not accept their mail. And both companies have policies not to ship to government post office boxes.

    Now, just like the USPS, REA had regulations about shipping firearms. Their Vice-President, Robert C. Hendon, told the Dodd Committee: “We have always required that shipments of small arms be handled through our moneys departments and each employee handling such shipments sign a receipt for same.” (ibid) If one looks in the Warren Report for such documents on this transaction, one will not see any such signed receipt from any REA employee. (p. 173)

    According to a copy of an REA invoice from Seaport, they allegedly shipped the revolver to Hidell at his post office box. (ibid) The FBI never obtained the original of this document. (Armstrong, p. 482) Now, Texas state law required that the consumer of firearms have an affidavit from a legal magistrate testifying to his good character on hand. This should have been forwarded with the order. There is no evidence it was. Further, REA had strict rules in place about identifying the receiver of firearms to make sure the man who ordered the weapon was the man REA was giving it to. There is no evidence in the record that this was ever done: no signed affidavit, no copy of an ID, not even a signed receipt by Hidell or Oswald. In other words, as with the rifle, there is no extant evidence that Oswald ever picked up this revolver.

    Contrary to what the careless Mr. Fernandez placed on the Lee Harvey Oswald page at Wikipedia, the actual package with the handgun could not possibly have been sent to Oswald’s box. Only the USPS delivers packages to its boxes. When the package arrived in the REA office at 515 South Houston in Dallas, a postcard should have been sent to Hidell at his box. And the date of this mailing should have been noted in their documentary record of the transaction. Again, this record is not in evidence. REA possessed no documents to certify the identity of the individual who picked up the package or the date of the pickup.

    Something is wrong here. And it appears the FBI understood that. For they never tried to certify the transaction, as they did with the rifle, by checking the bank records of REA for a remittance to Seaport. Or the Seaport records for a receipt from REA. But even more surprising, there is no evidence in the record that the FBI ever visited the REA office at South Houston. Which is very surprising. In any normal investigation, agents should have been sent there immediately to find the clerk who performed the transaction, and to pick up the documents REA had in support of the transaction. Without that evidence in any form, what is the proof that 1.) Oswald ever picked up a postcard at his box notifying him that REA had the revolver, or 2.) That Oswald picked up the weapon at REA?

    The world awaits Mr. Fernandez’ answers to those queries. In light of the above facts and evidence, his statement that the revolver had been sent to Oswald’s PO Box in Dallas is nothing but ignorant mythology. That is the price one pays for trusting unreliable sources and not doing any actual research.

  • Journalists and JFK, Part 2: The Real Dizinfo Agents at Dealey Plaza


    Intro
    Part 1
    Part 3


    Henry and Clare Booth Luce, C. D. Jackson & Issac Don Levine – That’s LIFE

    In the immediate aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy a decision was made at the highest levels of government; that, even though the evidence indicating the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was acting at the behest of Cuba was not true, it could be used to strong arm reluctant leaders in the legislative and judicial branches of government to do what the new president wanted.

    Earl Warren later explained in an oral history interview for the LBJ Library, that after he was asked to head the commission, “I told them I thought I shouldn’t do it, and I made some suggestions to them as to people whom they might get who would fill the purpose. And I thought that was the end of it. And then in about an hour I got a phone call from the White House and was asked if I could come up and see the President. And I said, ‘certainly,’ so I went up there. And the President told me that he was greatly disturbed by the rumors that were going around the world about a conspiracy and so forth, and that he thought that it might because it involved both Khrushchev and Castro – that it might even catapult us into a nuclear war if it got a head start, you know, and kept growing.”

    “And he (LBJ) said that he had just been talking to McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense then,” Warren continued, “and that McNamara had told him that if we got into a nuclear war that at the first strike we would lose sixty million people. And he impressed upon me the great danger that was involved in having something develop from all this talk. He said he had talked to the leaders of both parties and that members of Congress – Dick Russell and Boggs on the Democratic side and Ford and Cooper on the other side – and John McCloy from New York and Allen Dulles would be willing to serve on the commission if I was to head it up.” (1)

    And this was not just an off-the-cuff decision, as John Newman puts it, “It is now apparent that the World War III pretext for a national security cover-up was built into the fabric of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.” (2)

    By threatening nuclear war if it were true, LBJ used the disinformation of Castro and Cuban complicity to convince the Chief Justice and congressmen to join the Commission. The nuclear threat helped persuaded them to go with the Lone-Nut scenario because a conspiracy had to be a foreign one. To accept the Lone-Nut scenario as possible or even plausible, all of the accused assassin’s intelligence connections had to be ignored and the assassin portrayed as a sociopathic loser acting upon unknown psychological motives. (3)
    Life magazine was one of the most prolific supporters of this fairytale. Just as it had been previously in leaking Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and Mongoose intelligence. And as it would after the assassination in anointing the disputed Tonkin Gulf Incident in order to get Congressional authorization for the war in Vietnam. (4)

    As the most popular magazine in America, Life was more influential than radio and TV news at the time. Life was the perfect platform to deliver any disinformation the CIA wanted widely distributed to a mass audience. It was used to influence key policy makers as well as the public, and also to discredit President Kennedy, as it tried to do on numerous occasions.

    Who were these guys? Well in looking at the Life magazine masthead of that era you will find a number of pertinent names – including Henry and Clare Booth Luce, C.D. Jackson and Issac Don Levine.

    Henry Luce, born in China to missionary parents, attended Yale, was a member of Skull & Bones, and with his schoolmate and partner Briton Hadden, quit the Baltimore News to form Time Inc., publishing Time Magazine in 1926, Fortune in 1930 and Life magazine in 1936. He remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964. A powerful Republican Party leader and committed anti-communist, he was a strong supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and “the China Lobby,” and against Castro in Cuba. Although Henry Luce died in 1967, his legacy continues to make an impact today. (5)

    It wasn’t a one-man show. Luce surrounded himself with like-minded publishers, editors, photographers and writers, most notably his second wife, Clare Booth Luce.

    Before dealing with Clare Booth Luce, it should be noted for the record that Henry Luce is also said to have had an affair with Mary Bancroft, one of Allen Dulles’ OSS agents and paramour, while Dulles is said to have been intimate with Luce’s wife. And in retrospect, Clare Booth Luce was in many ways more of a player than Henry Luce himself. (6)

    Before she became a Congresswomen and ambassador (to Italy), Clare Booth Luce had struck up an early friendship with John F. Kennedy, sending him a good luck coin during World War II. (7)

    Clare Booth Luce has been aptly described as, “One of the wealthiest women in the world, widow of the founder of the Time, Inc. publishing empire, former member of the House of Representatives, former Ambassador to Italy, successful Broadway playwright, international socialite and longtime civic activist, Luce was responsible for later ‘leads’ in the JFK assassination aftermath. Luce will later claim that sometime after the Bay of Pigs she receives a call from her ‘great friend’ William Pawley – who wants to put together a fleet of speedboats which would be used by the exiles to dart in and out of Cuba on ‘intelligence gathering’ missions. Luce eventually sponsors one of the boats. She refers to the crew of this boat as ‘my boys.’ Luce will also maintain that it is one of these boat crews that brings back the first news of Soviet missiles in Cuba. JFK, she says, didn’t react to it so she helped to feed the information to Senator Kenneth Keating, who made it public.” (8)

    She sat in the same limo with LBJ on JFK’s inauguration day, and when she asked him why in the world he took the Vice Presidential slot instead of staying in the more powerful position he held in Congress, she quoted him as saying, “Clare, I looked it up; One out of every four presidents has died in office. I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got.” (9) Although the true odds were one in five presidents, or twenty percent, died in office, perhaps LBJ knew he could improve those odds, and it wasn’t such a gamble at all.

    With the new Democratic administration, Luce brought aboard a new publisher, C. D. – Charles Douglas– Jackson, an OSS hand and President Eisenhower’s personal administrative assistant on psychological warfare and Cold War strategy. (10)

    While Jackson would remain in the background, devising strategy, Clare Booth Luce wrote a weekly column and an occasional photo feature for Life. The magazineran articles on the impending invasion of Cuba before the Bay of Pigs, and in one column, a week before the Cuban Missile Crisis, Clare Booth Luce chastised the President for ignoring the evidence of offensive missiles in Cuba. (11) She says she had been told this by ‘her boys,’ who ran commando missions in and out of Cuba. But she also apparently saw the U2 photos leaked by the Air Force liaison to the National Photographic Interpretation Center, before they were revealed to the president. The NPIC U2 photos of missiles in Cuba were also shown to Sen. Keating (R. NY) by Col. Philip J. Corso, who later bragged about leaking it in his book The Day After Roswell. (12)

    After the Cuban Missile crisis was successfully resolved, Luce began writing stories about Mongoose, the CIA’s covert operations against Castro, which you could have read all about in Life, as they ran photos and stories about Operation Red Cross (aka the Bayo/Pawley Mission), and other anti-Castro missions. Clare was particularly proud of “her boys,” the team of anti-Castro commandos who ran maritime missions into Cuba in their speed boat, and she financially backed, though they were also supported by the CIA. They were based out of the CIA’s JMWAVE base in Florida, affiliated with the DRE and led by JulioFernandez. (13)

    On the night of the assassination, Clare Booth Luce says she was awakened from sleep by a phone call by Fernandez. He claimed to have exclusive knowledge of the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, including recordings of him, and other records that appeared to substantiate his pro-Castro leanings i.e. the original Phase One cover-story., Castro did it. Luce told him to call the FBI. But he didn’t, or at least there is no record of him having done so. (14)

    The Luces could have slept soundly that night, knowing that Life was on top of the story. They had people at Dealey Plaza – the scene of the crime of the century. And before the weekend was over they would have sole ownership of the single most desired peace of evidence in the case, the Zapruder film. They would also obtain the infamous Backyard Photos of the accused assassin, his “Historic Diary,” exclusive photos of the Oswald family and then contractually tie up Marina’s story for decades.

    But before the weekend was out, the accused assassin would be killed while in police custody, and then branded the lone assassin. It was just a matter of whether he was going to be portrayed as part of a Cuban Communist conspiracy or as a deranged, lone nut, the answer to which would depend on how it all played out in public.

    Life had a good team working on the assassination. Texas bureau chief, Holland McCombs was in Austin, working on a story about the sex lives of college students. McCombs got the job at Life after giving Henry Luce a raucous tour of Texas, introducing him to cantinas, tequila and hot peppers. After Luce hired him, its rumored that his first job was to get a spy in the office of the president of Mexico, clearly showing Luce’s interests also went south of the border. (15)

    McCombs had served in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) so such an operation was within his wherewithal. McCombs later helped abort Life’s belated 1967 investigation of a domestic conspiracy. McCombs supported his friend Clay Shaw, a suspect in Jim Garrison’s case in New Orleans, even though his own team had developed evidence that supported a conspiracy.

    As early as February 1964 McCombs and Life had developed the fact that the McCurley brothers, who had assisted Oswald in handing out the FPCC leaflets in New Orleans, patronized the Black Lamp, a gay bar in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. At that tavern, there was a bartender named Frankie Hydell. The Warren Report claimed that there was no such person as Hidell, which was the name Oswald used as an alias. And the information McCombs and Life developed went uninvestigated by both Life and the Warren Commission. (16)

    Although McCombs was in Austin at the time of the assassination, he had hired a young intern and stringer, Patsy Swank, who was heels on the ground in Dallas and would come up with the scoop on the Z-film.

    As soon as they heard about the assassination, McCombs, and the west coast editor in Los Angeles Richard Stolley, flew immediately to Dallas, probably under orders or assignment from C. D. Jackson in New York. Stolley brought along photographer Alan Grant. Writer Tommy Thompson, who was from Dallas, also flew in. Stolley set up shop in a room at the Adolphus Hotel, just across the street from the Carousel Club, and where the Secret Service and White House Communications Agency (WHCA) had their base of operations during the President’s visit. (17)

    Although the FBI maintains it had lost track of Oswald when he moved to New Orleans, and he kept a room by himself in Oak Cliff, Oswald had subscribed to magazines that were sent to the Paine home, including The Worker, the official organ of the Communist Party in the USA, the Trotskyite Militant, and Time Magazine. Therefore, at the time of the assassination, Time-Life had Oswald’s address at the Paine home in their files in New York, where their offices were at Rockefeller Center. (18) Which is also where the British Security Coordination was based, and where Oswald’s mother had worked in a retail shop on the first floor of the Empire State Building. While it may have been unknown to some of the authorities who were looking for him, Time-Life had Oswald’s address in their subscription file. And it didn’t take long for the Life team to get there.

    While Thompson and photographer Alan Grant went out to the Paine house in Irving, Patsy Swank was at the Dallas Police Department, where she had been tipped off about a film of the assassination. She called Stolley at the Adolphus on the phone and in a hushed voice so other reporters wouldn’t hear her, told him about the movie of the assassination that was taken by a man whose last name began with a “Z.” Stolley quickly found Zapruder’s name in the phone book, assumed it was him, and called his home every fifteen minutes until Zapruder finally answered. Mr. “Z” had been driving around aimlessly thinking about what he had witnessed through the lens of his camera. Stolley wanted to meet him immediately but Zapruder told him to see him at his office early the next morning. (19)

    Meanwhile, with Grant snapping exclusive photos, Thompson had gotten Marina’s confidence, and with C. D. Jackson persuading her with cash, the wife and mother of the accused assassin agreed to give them their exclusive story if Thompson would take them to see Oswald at the jail. (20)

    Although the Zapruder film, the Backyard Photos, the “Historic Diary,” Thompson’s articles and Grant’s photos that Life published, have all been examined extensively and deserve even further scrutiny, Marina’s story is the clincher. With the death of Oswald, his guilt or innocence in the eyes of the public depended on how she portrayed him for history. But it wasn’t really Marina’s portrait of Oswald in Life. It was the author’s portrait, as described, at least in part, by Marina in Russian, and translated by the author.

    At first it was reported that Marina’s story would be ghost written by Issac Don Levine, its in-house Russian defector and professional anti-communist propagandist. (21) Levine would have been perfect for the job, if they were going to stick with the Cuban Communist Conspiracy Cover-story. But that fell by the wayside as it became apparent that it just was not accurate.

    That didn’t matter to Levine any more than it didn’t matter to LBJ. Levine had previously written The Mind of the Assassin, about Leon Trotsky’s killer Raymond Mercader, who Levine cleverly unmasks as a deep penetration agent of Stalin’s KGB’s assassination directorate SMERSH. Mercader got to Trotsky in exile in Mexico City and stabbed him to death, was convicted for it, served time in prison and was later released. (22)

    Oswald had described himself as a Trotskyite, and subscribed to The Militant, the monthly publication of the Trotskyite party in the United States, which was founded by the father of Michael Paine, Oswald’s chief benefactor at the time of the assassination. Besides providing room and board for Oswald’s wife and two kids, Michael Paine also handled Oswald’s belongings, including the alleged assassination rifle, which was kept in his garage while Oswald went to Mexico. (23)

    It’s still unclear what Oswald did in Mexico City, but with his fascination with Trotsky, one must wonder if he visited the apartment where Trotsky was killed, or knew the details, as written and published by Levine in his book. If you look up Issac Don Levine’s Wikipedia biography, it fails to even mention The Mind of the Assassin, possibly his most important work. (24)

    Marina’s story is not listed there either. But for a different reason. Because he never got the job. Instead, the contract was given to Priscilla Johnson (McMillan). Priscilla, like George DeMohrenschildt, had the unique attribute of having made the acquaintance of both the President and his accused assassin. Oswald’s good friend DeMohrenschildt knew the Kennedys from their support of the Cystic Fibrosis Charity that he established with his second wife, Dr. De De Sharples. Priscilla knew JFK from Massachusetts, where she worked for him in 1954, and a few years later she met Oswald in Moscow at the time of his defection. (25) So she wasn’t entering the drama cold. She was already a player, and an integral part of the disinformation network that promoted the Dealey Plaza operation cover-story and protected those responsible for the murder of John F. Kennedy.

    Notes

    1. LBJ strongarm. LBJ Library Oral History Collection. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Warren-E/Warren-e.PDF
    2. See Video: J.E. Hover, L.B. Johnson, and the Warren Commission’s role -1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZdtTa_164o
    3. Newman, John – Oswald & the CIA (2008 edition); http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/05/page-13.html
    4. Life and Tonkin Gulf Incident. Life Magazine August 14, 1964 p. 21 Special Report – “From The Files of Navy Intelligence Aboard the Maddox” p. 21 – Cover story on LBJ – “The Complex and Extraordinary Man Who Is The President” – In Two Articles – an intimate and revealing portrait. http://books.google.com/books?id=cUkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA21&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2 – v=onepage&q&f=false
    5. Henry Robinson Luce New York Times Obituary, March 1, 1967. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0403.html
    6. Bancroft, Mary – Autobiography of a Spy. http://jungcurrents.com/bancroft-sp/
    Also see: http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-A-Bu-and-Obituaries/Bancroft-Mary.html
    7. Clare Booth Luce gives coin to JFK & JFK Letter to CBL
    http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/postwar/election/jfklettr.html
    Clare Booth Luce background http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/luce-cla.htm.
    8. Wood, Ira David III. JFK Assassination Chronology.
    9. http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/1054343251/presidents-talk-about-presidents-john-f-kennedy – “I looked it up; one out of every four Presidents has died in office.  I’m a gamblin’ man, darling, and this is the only chance I got.” — Lyndon B. Johnson, to Clare Booth Luce, on why he accepted the Vice Presidential nomination from JFK, January 1961. Also see: Ira David Wood III – JFK Assassination Chronology. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
    10. Wood, Ira David III. JFK Assassination Chronology. See above.
    11. C. D. Jackson background “The CIA’s assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy.”
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php
    Before he became an ardent cold warrior, C.D. Jackson was
    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjacksonCD.htm
    According to Carl Bernstein, Jackson was “Henry Luce’s personal emissary to the CIA”. He also claimed that in the 1950s Jackson had arranged for CIA employees to travel with Time-Life credentials as cover.
    11. Clare Booth Luce & Cuban Missile Crisis – Cuba –and the unfaced truth – Our Global Double BindLife Magazine, Oct. 5, 1962, p. 53.
    12. Corso & NPIC Leak – Corso, Philip J. (Day After Roswell, Simon & Schuster , 1997) and Wood, Ira David III. JFK Assassination Chronology.
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15829
    Corso & JFK black prop op – see: “The Zipper Documents,” Gregory.
    13. Clare Booth Luce & Julio Fernandez & DRE Clare Booth Luce and Julio Fernandez:
    http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/julio-fernandez.html
    Also see Gary Shaw and John Stockwell: http://images.mitrasites.com/illustration/julio-fern%C3%A1ndez.html
    14. Clare Booth Luce & Julio Fernandez on 11/22/63
    15. Holland McCombs & Luce – Kelin, John – Holland McCombs – “The Investigation that Never Was.”
    http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/32nd_Issue/holland.html
    16. Kelin, John – Holland McCombs – The Investigation That Never Was. Also see McCombs archive at University of Tennessee.
    http://www.utm.edu/departments/acadpro/library/departments/special_collections/manus/ms001.htm
    17. Life Team in Dallas Patsy Swank & Z film. Thompson, Josiah. Why The Zapruder Film Is Authentic, JFK Deep Politics Quarterly, April 1999, Vol. 4, No. 3. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/dparchiv1.htm – FILM
    18. Oswald address & Time-Life – Education Forum – Life Magazine and the Assassination of JFK – John Dolva post.
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5046
    Stolley bio: http://www.santafe.com/articles/author/richard-b-stolley/ http://www.life.com/image/72386160
    20. Thompson & Marina. Grant, Alan. The Day The President Was Shot – The Kidnapping of the Oswald Family.
    http://www.allangrant.com/oswaldstory.htm For Alan Grant’s photos see: http://www.allangrant.com/newsevents7.htm. Also see: Richard Stolley on Tommy Thompson:
    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20087091,00.html
    21. Issac Don Levine (19 January 1892 – 15 February 1981) Scott, Peter Dale,  Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1996. says C. D. Jackson, on the urging of Allen Dulles employed Issac Don Levine to ghost-write Marina’s story. This story never appeared in print. Levine background:.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Don_Levine.
    Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambershttp://en.wikipedia….saac_Don_Levine
    22. Issac Don Levine & Trotsky – Levine, wrote the book Mind of the Assassin, that details how the KGB’s agent Raymond Mercader assassinated Trotsky. See Peter Sedgwick’s Review
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/sedgwick/1960/11/assassin.htmhttp://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2139856.The_Mind_of_an_Assassin
    23. Michael Paine, Trotsky & Oswald in MC. Weberman. Nodule X16 http://ajweberman.com/noduleX16-PAINES CIA CONNECTIONS.pdf
    Forbes Family history (Linda Minor): http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg22399.html
    Michael Paine Warren Commission Testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
    24. Levine & Wiki & “Mind of the Assassin.” Bibliography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Don_Levine
    25. Lee Oswald, Marina and Priscilla Johnson.
    ARRB Testiomony http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index4.htm
    PBS Interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/mcmillan.html

  • Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail


    The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:

    A Review of The Kennedy Detail, a Compelling but Dangerous Mix of Fact, Faction, and Fiction


    EDITOR’S NOTE: In advance of the Discovery Channel’s latest annual attempt to bolster the flagging Lone Gunman Myth – via their production of The Kennedy Detail – CTKA welcomes Vincent Palamara’s review of former Secret Service Agent Gerald Blaine’s recently published book of the same title, on which the Discovery Channel production has been based. Without question, the JFK research community is heavily indebted to Vince for his decades-long diligence in his pursuit and collection of first-hand accounts from Secret Service Agents in regard to procedures, directives, and actual eye-witness testimony surrounding the fateful events of November 22, 1963.

    While reading through Palamara’s own account of the testimonies that he has collected over the years in refutation of Gerald Blaine’s own personal remembrances, CKTA readers should keep in mind the controversial nature of sources such as Sy Hersh (The Dark Side of Camelot) and Peter Jennings (Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years) which Palamara references in this review. For the purpose of a balanced perspective, readers would do well to read an excerpt of an article by Jim DiEugenio: The Posthumous Assassination of JFK, Part II Sy Hersh and the Monroe/JFK Papers: The History of a Thirty-Year Hoax. (The complete essay may be found in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease.)

    Finally, and most importantly, CTKA readers should bear in mind that both Blaine’s book The Kennedy Detail and the Discovery Channel production on which it is based find “big picture” questions “radioactive.” In other words, Blaine and the Discovery Channel keep a very safe distance from the most important questions involving the Secret Service’s performance surrounding the events of November 22, 1963:

    1. Who in the Secret Service approved the motorcade route that resulted in the dogleg 120-degree turn, which slowed the limousine considerably beside a seven-story high-rise building and in front of an inclined and protected knoll, which together provided the cover for a virtual ambushed assault on the president they were sworn to protect?
    2. What of the “Chicago plot” of early November ’63? To what extent did the Secret Service’s involvement with the events in Chicago foreshadow those of a few weeks later in Dallas? And how much of its Chicago investigation has the Secret Service either altered or purged from the record for the purpose of – as former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden alleges (page down for Agent Bolden’s amazon.com review) – “cya”?
    3. Who in the Secret Service is to be held responsible for authorizing the initial bucket-sponging of the “crime scene on wheels” – i.e., the presidential limousine, followed by its all-too-quick restoration? – a blatant destruction of evidence.
    4. What about the Secret Service’s “stealing of the body” from Parkland Hospital, arguably the cornerstone for the resulting vagaries and obfuscations of the Bethesda “autopsy?”

    It’s “big picture” questions such as these that hold the key to either the exoneration or culpability of the Secret Service in regard to JFK’s assassination. To that extent, as Blaine and the Discovery Channel skate around these issues, it seems Palamara does indeed have his finger on the pulse: Ultimately, as regards the Secret Service, it all does appear to become a question of “Survivor’s Guilt.”

    As for any survivor’s guilt on his part, Agent Abraham Bolden tells us: “I sleep well at night knowing that I did everything that I could do to save the life of President Kennedy. Can the agents standing on the running board of the follow-up car in Dallas, Texas and watching the president’s head blown to pieces, say the same thing?”


    I: Ruffled Feathers

    On June 1, 2005, I sent a 22-page registered letter, signed receipt required, to former Secret Service agent Clint Hill1 (infamous for his leap onto the back of the limousine during the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963). My letter was, in essence, a “Cliff Notes” version of my own book “Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President”2, focusing mainly on the issue of the agents’ presence – or lack thereof – on the rear of the presidential limousine on 11/22/63, as well as the actions and inactions of three specific agents I have many misgivings about: Floyd Boring (the number two agent on the Kennedy Detail and the Secret Service planner of the Texas trip), Shift Leader Emory Roberts (the commander of the agents in the follow-up car in Dallas), and William Greer (the driver of JFK’s limousine). When I phoned the gentleman on June 13, 2005, I received a very cantankerous “non-reply”, so to speak: “[Referring to my letter:] About what? Yeah, I’m here. I’m just not interested in talking to you.” I did not really expect much, but it was worth a try (having received an unexpected recommendation to talk to Mr. Hill from former agent Lynn Meredith, who was gracious enough to provide Mr. Hill’s unlisted address and phone number).

    On June 10, 2005, I phoned fellow former agent Gerald Blaine (having previously spoken to the gentleman on 2/7/04). Blaine confirmed his deep friendship with Hill and, much to my surprise, seemingly out of nowhere, said: “Don’t be too hard on Emory Roberts. He was a double, even a triple-checker. He probably took Jack Ready’s life into consideration.” It was at that moment that I realized that Clint Hill shared the contents of my letter to Blaine; probably with a good dose of anger and indignation, as well. When I received word that Blaine was coming out with a book called The Kennedy Detail AND that Clint Hill was writing the Foreword, I KNEW that I was responsible, as a catalyst, for their endeavors! Blaine and Hill are now on a book tour together, as well as appearing jointly on several news and media outlets, including an upcoming Discovery Channel documentary, based on the book.

    In fact, Blaine even admitted to Grand Junction Sentinel reporter Bob Silbernagel that it was during this exact time that he “began contacting all he could of the 38 agents who were in the Kennedy Detail on Nov. 22, 1963,” adding further that once “he began seeing all the misinformation and outright deceit about the assassination on the Internet, as well as in books and films, he decided, “Essentially, it was a book that had to be written.”3

    There was no question in my mind that I ruffled feathers with Blaine and Hill. If all this weren’t enough, Blaine’s attorney even sent me a certified letter in November 2009, a year before his book was to appear, asking me to take down a blog that Blaine noticed on my main Secret Service blog4 that merely announced their forthcoming book. Blaine thought I was trying to say that I was the co-author, which was the furthest thing from the truth – I was innocently telling my readers of a book they might find of interest. In any event, after writing back to Blaine and his lawyer, I decided to take that specific blog down… but this incident let me know, in no uncertain terms: Blaine and Hill were men on a mission.

    This is further evidenced by what Blaine himself wrote on his blog5: “At the annual conference of the 2,500 member former Secret Service Agents Association [AFAUSSS] last week (8/26-8/28/10) in New York City, Lisa McCubbin and I [Gerald Blaine] presented an overview of the book at the business meeting to ensure the agents that the publication was “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”; “At the conference opening reception Clint Hill, Lisa McCubbin and I [Gerald Blaine] met with Secret Service Director Sullivan and discussed the book from the perspective of today’s operations. Clint Hill, who lives in the Washington DC area, had previously briefed the Director on the accuracy and purpose of writing the book.”; “I [Gerald Blaine] am the sole surviving charter member and a past president of the organization. The association was conceived by Floyd Boring and Jerry Behn with the assistance of fifteen charter members. Jerry Behn was the Special Agent in Charge of the Kennedy Detail and Floyd Boring was an Assistant Agent in Charge. The organization’s mission is to maintain social and professional relationships, to liaison with the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies” (emphasis added)

    To quote from a popular commercial, “Can you hear me now?”

    I knew their “mission” was to circle the wagons, so to speak, and attempt to counter my prolific research on the failings of the Secret Service on November 22, 1963, specifically, the statements by many of their colleagues – including BLAINE himself – that President Kennedy was a very nice man, never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service and, to the point, did NOT order the agents off his limousine… ever! These men, as well as several important non-agency personnel (such as Dave Powers, Congressman Sam Gibbons, and Cecil Stoughton, among others), provided information, on the phone and/ or in writing, to a total stranger – myself – with no trepidation whatsoever. “Official” history – the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, William Manchester’s “The Death of a President”, and Jim Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot” – espouses a decidedly different verdict: President Kennedy was reckless with his security and did order the agents off his limousine-not in Dallas, but during the major trip before, in Tampa, FL, on 11/18/63, which allegedly had grave consequences for JFK’s protection on the day he was assassinated.

    First, a detailed look at the contents of The Kennedy Detail is in order.

    II: A Major Myth Demolished

    The book gets off on the wrong foot with myself and others right away with the bold pronouncement: “JFK’s Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence” (which is also the subtitle of the book). This is hogwash: not only did several agents, including Clint Hill, testify to the Warren Commission, many of the agents spoke to the aforementioned William Manchester (including Blaine and Hill6), Jim Bishop, and the HSCA, as well as to, among others, Prof. Philip Melanson (for his book The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency), several prominent Secret Service television documentaries between 1995 and 2004 (Hill was involved in all of these productions that made their way to VHS and/ or DVD, as well), and, last but certainly not least, to myself, Vince Palamara, between 1992 and 2006 (again, including Blaine and Hill)! Things only get worse once one gets to the inside flap jacket: Blaine writes that JFK “banned agents from his car”, which is patently false – as Winston Lawson, the lead advance agent for the fateful Dallas trip, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/12/04: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle… it never came to my attention as such. I am certain agents were on the back on certain occasions.” For his part, ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Art Godfrey told this reviewer on May 30, 1996, regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents not to do certain things which included removing themselves from the rear of the limousine: “That’s a bunch of baloney; that’s not true. He never ordered us to do anything. He was a very nice man … cooperative.” Godfrey reiterated this on June 7, 1996. In a letter dated November 24, 1997, Godfrey stated the following: “All I can speak for is myself. When I was working [with] President Kennedy he never ask[ed] me to have my shift leave the limo when we [were] working it,” thus confirming what he had also told the author telephonically on two prior occasions. As we shall see, Blaine makes much ado about this issue… for obvious reasons (Thou Protest Too Much).

    Although very well written and containing some nice photographs, The Kennedy Detail provides the reader a generous dose of fact, “faction” (playing hard and loose with alleged ‘facts’ and encompassing reconstructed dialogue and supposed meetings that allegedly occurred without documentation) and fiction. In fact, there are no footnotes, endnotes, sources, or a bibliography to be found (although, to his credit, Blaine did include an impressive index). It is important to note that many important former agents and officials, such as “the brass” – Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, Asst Sec. G. d’Andelot Belin, Chief James Rowley, Aide to the Chief Walter Blaschak, Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, Assistant Chief Russell Daniels, Assistant Chief Ed Wildy, Chief U.E. Baughman, Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) Gerald Behn, ASAIC Floyd Boring (the planner of the Texas trip), ASAIC Roy Kellerman (rode in JFK’s limo), ASAIC John Campion, ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Emory Roberts (rode in follow up car), ATSAIC Stu Stout (on Texas trip), ATSAIC Art Godfrey (on Texas trip), SAIC of Personnel Howard Anderson, SAIC of PRS Robert Bouck, ASAIC of LBJ Detail (and former JFK agent) Rufus Youngblood, Head Inspector of PRS Elliot Thacker, Chief Inspector Jackson Krill, Inspector Thomas Kelley, Inspector Gerard McCann, & Inspector Burrill Peterson – and many “privates”, such as Bill Bacherman, Glen Bennett (of PRS; rode in motorcade), Andy Berger (on the Texas trip), Bert deFreese (on the Texas trip), Jerry Dolan, Paul Doster, PRS Dick Flohr, Morgan Gies, William Greer (the driver of JFK’s limo), Dennis Halterman (on the Texas trip), Ned Hall II (on the Texas trip), Harvey Henderson, George Hickey (rode in the follow-up car), Andy Hutch, Jim Jeffries, Sam Kinney (drove the follow-up car), PRS Elmer Lawrence, James Mastrovito, John “Muggsy” O’Leary (on the Texas trip), Bill Payne (on the Texas trip), PRS Walter Pine, Wade Rodham7, Henry Rybka (on the Texas trip), Thomas Shipman (deceased 10/14/63!), PRS Frank Stoner, & PRS Walter Young – not to mention countless agents from field offices (such as the SAIC of the Dallas Office Forrest Sorrels and his assistant Robert Steuart AND Charlie Kunkel), DIED YEARS BEFORE THIS BOOK WAS EVEN A THOUGHT. In addition, since there are no specific references, it is hard to know exactly WHO among the living WAS interviewed, as Blaine recently admitted that “three agents still cannot discuss the emotional aspects of that day in Dallas” and he was unable “to contact three other agents who served.”8 In addition, several OTHER agents (such as Lynn Meredith, Bob Foster, Paul Burns, Jerry Kivett and Stu Knight) passed away during the time Blaine was writing his book, so we are unable to know if they were contacted, as well.

    That said, it is most telling that Blaine admitted that three agents – Larry Newman, Tony Sherman, and Tim McIntyre (rode in the follow-up car) – were not contacted because they had “responded to Seymour Hirsch’s [sic] book, The Dark Side of Camelot, which violated the code of silence.”9 Yet, the fourth agent, Joe Paolella, apparently WAS interviewed for Blaine’s volume. Why wasn’t he banished from his work, as well? Using this “code of silence” criteria, several (perhaps many) of the agents who spoke to myself and others should have been ignored, as well (example: former agent Walt Coughlin told me that LBJ was “a first-class prick”10). It was obvious why Blaine ignored former agent Abraham Bolden: the controversial nature of Bolden’s beliefs and so forth.11 So, it appears a little selectivity, necessary and otherwise, was used regarding former agent interviews for The Kennedy Detail.12

    As for the aforementioned Newman, Sherman, McIntyre, and Paolella, they waxed on to Seymour Hersh (and others, including the December 1997 ABC/ Peter Jennings special Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years) about their anger and disgust over JFK’s private lives. Incredibly, even Emory Roberts’ concerns over these issues was voiced by McIntyre. This is very disturbing because it shows a MOTIVE FOR INACTION on 11/22/63. For his part, McIntyre told ABC News, regarding JFK’s private life: “Prostitution – that’s illegal. A procurement is illegal. And if you have a procurer with prostitutes paraded in front of you, then, as a sworn law enforcement officer, you’re asking yourself, ‘Well, what do they think of us?’ ” McIntyre felt this way after having only spent a very brief time with JFK before the assassination: he joined the White House Detail in the fall of 1963.13 McIntyre also told Hersh: “His shift supervisor, the highly respected Emory Roberts, took him aside and warned … that ‘you’re going to see a lot of shit around here. Stuff with the President. Just forget about it. Keep it to yourself. Don’t even talk to your wife.’ … Roberts was nervous about it. Emory would say, McIntyre recalled with a laugh, ‘How in the hell do you know what’s going on? He could be hurt in there. What if one bites him’ in a sensitive area? Roberts ‘talked about it a lot’, McIntyre said. ‘Bites’ … In McIntyre’s view, a public scandal about Kennedy’s incessant womanizing was inevitable. ‘It would have had to come out in the next year or so. In the campaign, maybe.’ McIntyre said he and some of his colleagues … felt abused by their service on behalf of President Kennedy … McIntyre said he eventually realized that he had compromised his law enforcement beliefs to the point where he wondered whether it was ‘time to get out of there. I was disappointed by what I saw.’ ” (emphasis added)14 Blaine chose to ignore these men and this issue entirely in his book: is this good history? I think not. It might not be pleasant, but these men said what they said – to ignore this matter speaks of a cover up of guilty knowledge. I did not ignore it.

    From the first photo section and page 19 of his book (and, later, on pages 240 and 288), we learn something I had already reported years before: that SAIC Gerald Behn “always traveled with the president. In the three years since Kennedy had been elected, Jerry Behn had not taken one day of vacation…He took his first vacation in four years the week JFK was assassinated.” Quirk of fate or convenient absence? You decide. I have.

    Also on page 19, Blaine begins to (using a lawyer’s term) “lay the foundation,” as it were, for blaming the victim (JFK) and, in the process, makes a real whopper: Blaine writes, “the Secret Service was not authorized to override a presidential decision.” Wrong! Ample proof to the contrary abounds. Chief James J. Rowley testified under oath to the Warren Commission: “No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.”15 In fact, Rowley’s predecessor, former Chief U. E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until September 1961, had written in his 1962 book Secret Service Chief : “Now the Chief of the Secret Service is legally empowered to countermand a decision made by anybody in this country if it might endanger the life or limb of the Chief Executive. This means I could veto a decision of the President himself if I decided it would be dangerous not to. The President of course knew this fact.”16 Indeed, an Associated Press story from November 15, 1963 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.” Even President Truman agreed, stating, “The Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.”17 Finally, In an 11/23/63 UPI story written by Robert J. Serling from Washington entitled “Secret Service Men Wary of Motorcade,” based in part on “private conversations” with unnamed agents: “An agent is the only man in the world who can order a President of the United States around if the latter’s safety is believed at stake … in certain situations an agent outranks even a President.” (emphasis added)

    One major myth down, one major one left to demolish.

    III: Standing Orders & “Ivy League Charlatans”

    Peppered throughout the book, but starting on page 74, Blaine begins to bring up the issue of the agents’ presence (or lack thereof) on the back of JFK’s limousine (in Tampa on 11/18/63, in Dallas on 11/22/63, and elsewhere – further “laying the foundation” for his false premise of blaming the victim), accurately stating for the record, AFTER revealing his knowledge of the Joseph Milteer threat received via the Miami Police Department before JFK’s trip to Florida: “… the only way to have a chance at protecting the president against a shooter from a tall building would be to have agents posted on the back of the car.” Indeed, on pages 81-84, as various films and photos confirm, Blaine tells of his having ridden on the rear of President Kennedy’s limousine in Rome and Naples, Italy (7/2/63). In addition, his first photo section depicts Blaine and his colleagues on or near the rear of JFK’s car in Costa Rica (March 1963), Berlin, Germany (June, 1963) and Ireland (also in June 1963), while his second photo section depicts yet another photo of the agents on the car in Ireland, as well as in Tampa, Florida (11/18/63) and even agent Clint Hill on the rear of the car in Dallas, Texas on 11/22/63, albeit before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza.

    It is on pages 100-101, in his zeal to set up his premise, that Blaine makes a costly error. Blaine writes: “Fortunately, they’d have SS100X [JFK’s special 1961 Lincoln Continental] in Dallas, which had the rear steps and handholds so two agents could be perched directly behind the president and could react quickly. He’d [Win Lawson would] be sure to tell Roy Kellerman, the Special Agent in Charge for the Texas trip, that when the motorcade was driving through downtown, agents would need to be on the back of the car.” However, as we have seen, and it bears repeating, Win Lawson wrote to this reviewer on 1/12/04, before this book was even a thought, and said: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle… it never came to my attention as such.” (emphasis added) Needless to say, this is in direct contradiction to these statements, attributed to Lawson by Blaine, in The Kennedy Detail.

    Blaine makes much of the 11/18/63 trip JFK took to Tampa as ‘evidence’ that President Kennedy ordered the agents off the car (as did the Secret Service, exactly five months after the assassination, via five reports submitted to the Warren Commission by Chief Rowley18). As with SAIC Behn’s first-time absence, we now supposedly have another instance of a brand new notion, as Blaine writes on page 148: “In the three years he’d been with JFK, he’d never heard the president call the agents off the back of the car in the middle of a motorcade.” Indeed, on page 162, Blaine reports that agent Ron Pontius stated: “I’ve never heard the president say anything about agents on the back of the car,” registering his astonishment based on allegedly hearing this, for the first time, on 11/21/63 from long-deceased agent Bert deFreese (in a 47-year-old reconstructed conversation – faction? fiction? – that Blaine makes in the book). Blaine is alleging that JFK ordered the agents (specifically, agents Don Lawton and Chuck Zboril) off the back of the car in Tampa, allegedly using the phrase made infamous by William Manchester19: “Floyd [Boring], have the Ivy League charlatans drop back to the follow-up car.” Blaine later adds, on page 184: “None of the agents understood why he [JFK] was willing to be so reckless.” If that weren’t enough, Blaine also stated (on the upcoming Discovery Channel documentary airing on 11/22/10): “President Kennedy made a decision, and he politely told everybody, ‘You know, we’re starting the campaign now, and the people are my asset,’” said agent Jerry Blaine. “And so, we all of a sudden understood. It left a firm command to stay off the back of the car.”20 Huh? “Everybody”? THAT alleged statement “left a firm command”? In any event, once again, we have a major conflict with reality – not only do many films and photos depict the agents (still) riding on (or walking/ jogging very near) the rear of the limousine in Tampa21 22, Congressman Sam Gibbons, who actually rode a mere foot away IN the car with JFK, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/15/04: “”I rode with Kennedy every time he rode. I heard no such order. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa. Sam Gibbons.” Also, photographer Tony Zappone, then a 16-year-old witness to the motorcade in Tampa (one of whose photos for this motorcade was ironically used in The Kennedy Detail!), told me that the agents were “definitely on the back of the car for most of the day until they started back for MacDill AFB at the end of the day.”23 (emphasis added)

    As for the “Ivy League Charlatans” remark JFK allegedly uttered to ASAIC Floyd Boring and, again, first made famous by Manchester, Boring told this author, “I never told him [Manchester] that.” As for the merit of the quote itself, as previously mentioned, Boring said, “No, no, no – that’s not true,” thus contradicting his own report in the process, stating further: “He actually – No, I told them … He didn’t tell them anything … He just – I looked at the back and I seen these fellahs were hanging on the limousine – I told them to return to the car … [JFK] was a very easy-going guy … he didn’t interfere with our actions at all.”24 In a later interview, Boring expounded further: “Well that’s not true. That’s not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all.”25 If that weren’t enough, Boring also wrote the author: “He [JFK] was very cooperative with the Secret Service.”26 Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s book! We may never know Mr. Manchester’s source for this curious statement: he told the author on August 23, 1993 that “… all that material is under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime” and denied the author access to his notes (Manchester has since passed away). Interestingly, Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts – an agent this reviewer is most suspicious of27 – and GERALD BLAINE, Manchester’s probable “source(s)”.28 29

    As for Blaine, this is what he told this reviewer: On February 7, 2004 Blaine said that President Kennedy was “very cooperative. He didn’t interfere with our actions. President Kennedy was very likeable – he never had a harsh word for anyone. He never interfered with our actions.” (emphasis added) When I asked Blaine how often the agents rode on the back of JFK’s limousine, the former agent said it was a “fairly common” occurrence that depended on the crowd and the speed of the cars. In fact, just as one example, Blaine rode on the rear of JFK’s limousine in Germany in June 1963, along with fellow Texas trip veterans Paul A. Burns and Samuel E. Sulliman. Blaine added, in specific reference to the agents on the follow-up car in Dallas: “You have to remember, they were fairly young agents,” seeming to imply that their youth was a disadvantage, or perhaps this was seen as an excuse for their poor performance on November 22, 1963. Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of November 18, 1963, said that JFK did make the comment “I don’t need Ivy League charlatans back there,” but emphasized this was a “low-key remark” said “kiddingly” and demonstrating Kennedy’s “Irish sense of humor.” However, according to the “official” story, President Kennedy allegedly made these remarks only to Boring while traveling in the presidential limousine in Tampa: Blaine was nowhere near the vehicle at the time, so Boring, despite what he conveyed to this reviewer, had to be his source for this story!30 In addition to Emory Roberts, one now wonders, as mentioned previously, if Blaine was a source (or perhaps the source) for Manchester’s exaggerated “quote” attributed to Boring, as Agent Blaine was also interviewed by Manchester. Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject. However, when the author phoned Blaine on June 10, 2005, the former agent said the remark “Ivy League charlatans” came “from the guys … I can’t remember who [said it] … I can’t remember.” (emphasis added) Thus, Blaine confirms that he did not hear the remark from JFK. That said, Blaine’s memory got a whole lot “better” 5 years later: he writes on page 148: “The message came though loud and clear on Blaine’s walkie-talkie.” Incredible.

    IV: Startling Admissions

    As for ASAIC Floyd Boring, this reviewer has no doubt that Boring DID INDEED CONVEY the fraudulent notion that JFK had asked that the agents remove themselves from the limo between 11/18-11/19/63, but that the former agent was telling the TRUTH of the matter when he spoke to me years later. You see, Clint Hill wrote in his report:

    I … never personally was requested by President John F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy had made such requests. I do not know from whom I received this information … No written instructions regarding this were ever distributed … [I] received this information after the President’s return to Washington, D.C. This would have been between November 19, 1963 and November 21, 1963 [note the time frame!]. I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President. (emphasis added)

    Mr. Hill’s undated report was presumably written in April 1964, as the other four reports were written at that time. Why Mr. Hill could not “remember” the specific name of the agent who gave him JFK’s alleged desires is very troubling – he revealed it on March 9, 1964, presumably before his report was written, in his (obviously pre-rehearsed) testimony under oath to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer with the Warren Commission31:

    Specter: “Did you have any other occasion en route from Love Field to downtown Dallas to leave the follow-up car and mount that portion of the President’s car [rear portion of limousine]?” Hill:I did the same thing approximately four times.” Specter: “What are the standard regulations and practices, if any, governing such an action on your part?” Hill: “It is left to the agent’s discretion more or less to move to that particular position when he feels that there is a danger to the President: to place himself as close to the President or the First Lady as my case was, as possible, which I did.” Specter: “Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?” Hill:No, they are not.” Specter: “Now, had there been any instruction or comment about your performance of that type of a duty with respect to anything President Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas?” Hill: “Yes, sir; there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip to Tampa, Florida, and he requested that the agents not ride on either of those two steps.” Specter: “And to whom did the President make that request?” Hill:Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.” Specter: “Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in charge of that trip to Florida?” Hill: “He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in Florida, and I presume that he was. I was not along.” Specter: “Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?” Hill: “Yes sir; the same position.” Specter:And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by President Kennedy?Hill:Yes sir, he did.” Specter:Did he make it a point to inform other special agents of that same instruction?Hill:I believe that he did, sir.Specter: “And, as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?Hill:Yes, sir.” Specter: “How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect your action and – your action in safeguarding him on this trip to Dallas?” Hill:We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile. I did on those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car.” (emphasis added)

    However, keeping in mind what Boring told this reviewer, the ARRB’s Doug Horne – by request of this reviewer – interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter on 9/18/96. Horne wrote: “Mr. Boring was asked to read pages 136–137 of Clint Hill’s Warren Commission testimony, in which Clint Hill recounted that Floyd Boring had told him just days prior to the assassination that during the President’s Tampa trip on Monday, November 18, 1963, JFK had requested that agents not ride on the rear steps of the limousine, and that Boring had also so informed other agents of the White House detail, and that as a result, agents in Dallas (except Clint Hill, on brief occasions) did not ride on the rear steps of the limousine. Mr. Boring affirmed that he did make these statements to Clint Hill, but stated that he was not relaying a policy change, but rather simply telling an anecdote about the President’s kindness and consideration in Tampa in not wanting agents to have to ride on the rear of the Lincoln limousine when it was not necessary to do so because of a lack of crowds along the street.” (emphasis added)

    This reviewer finds this admission startling, especially because the one agent who decided to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas anyway – and on at least four different occasions – was none other than Clint Hill himself.

    This also does not address what the agents were to do when the crowds were heavier, or even what exactly constituted a “crowd”, as agents did ride on the rear steps of the limousine in Tampa on November 18, 1963 anyway! (agents Donald J. Lawton, Andrew E. Berger, and Charles T. Zboril, to be exact. Perhaps this is why Blaine felt the need to caption a photo of Boring with the following: “[Boring] was highly respected by all the agents, as well as by JFK.”)

    “Presidential admonition” (as Specter said to Hill)? Simply an “anecdote” of “the President’s kindness” (what Boring said to Horne)? “Not true” (what Boring said to this reviewer)? You decide. I have… and so has Blaine: twice, in fact – what he told this reviewer and what he now claims in The Kennedy Detail (see the flapjacket, pages 148-150, 162, 183-184, 206, 208, 209, 232).”

    On page 162, Blaine alleges that SAIC Gerald Behn, from his office in the White House, told agent Ron Pontius on 11/21/63: “[JFK] wanted the agents off the back of the car [in Tampa and Dallas] in order for the people to get an unobstructed view.” However, in a contradiction Blaine doesn’t even notice (although he previously mentioned it on page 19 and in the first photo section), BEHN WAS ON VACATION DURING THIS TIME! Perhaps most importantly, Behn told this reviewer on 9/27/92: “I don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on the back of his car. I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.”32 In fact, MANY former agents and White House aides told this reviewer the same thing Lawson, Boring, and Behn all said!33

    And yet, despite all of this defensive posturing, faction, and fabricating, Blaine states, with regard to the agents’ not being on the rear of the car in Dealey Plaza (on page 209): “It was standard procedure – regardless of the president’s request – for all agents to fall back to the follow-up car in this situation.” (see also page 289) But Blaine wasn’t done just yet.

    V: Reconstructing History

    In what this reviewer regards as a clever fabrication with “faction” (reconstructing alleged dialogue, 47 years later, from long-dead colleagues), Blaine claims (on pages 285-289 & 360) that there was a meeting at 8 a.m. on 11/25/63, the morning of JFK’s funeral, in which the issue of JFK’s alleged orders to remove the agents from the car in Tampa (and Dallas) was allegedly covered up so the public would not blame the president for his own death… SOMETHING THIS BOOK, AND ESPECIALLY THIS “TALE”, DOES WITH VIGOR! Blaine claims that this meeting was attended by himself, Chief James Rowley (deceased 11/1/92), Rowley’s secretary Walter Blaschak (long deceased) , ASAIC Floyd Boring (deceased 2/1/08 and in ill heath long beforehand), SAIC Jerry Behn (as noted previously, deceased 4/21/93), ATSAIC Stu Stout (deceased December 1974), and ATSAIC Emory Roberts (deceased 10/8/73). ASAIC Roy Kellerman (deceased 3/22/84) allegedly did NOT attend and, while Blaine mentions that “every supervising agent” was in attendance, he does not mention ATSAIC Art Godfrey (deceased 5/12/2002) by name, although it is ‘inferred’ that he was there, as well.

    It must be said forcefully: There is NO documentation whatsoever that this alleged meeting occurred and all the participants, save Blaine (imagine that), are long dead AND many of them said and wrote things to this reviewer contradictory to the substance of this alleged meeting. On page 288, Blaine writes, speaking for SAIC Behn: “Jim, after Floyd told me about the incident [the alleged JFK orders to remove the agents 11/18/63 in Tampa], I told him to relay the information to the shift leaders – Emory Roberts, Art Godfrey, and Stu Stout – and I know that he did that. They in turn told the men on their shift, which included the agents out on advances.” Incredible.

    We already know what Behn, Boring, Blaine, Godfrey, and Lawson said to this reviewer; Stout34 and Kellerman never said anything officially, one way or the other on the matter. Roberts’ report confirms nothing except that ASAIC Boring told him to remove the agents from the car on 11/18/63; nothing about JFK or anything else. What about the other “agents out on advances?” Frank Yeager, Blaine’s advance partner in Tampa, in a letter to this reviewer dated December 29, 2003, Yeager wrote: “I did not think that President Kennedy was particularly ‘difficult’ to protect. In fact, I thought that his personality made it easier than some because he was easy to get along with … .” (emphasis added) With regard to the author’s question “Did President Kennedy ever order the agents off the rear of his limousine?” Yeager responded: “I know of no ‘order’ directly from President Kennedy. I think that after we got back from Tampa, Florida where I did the advance for the President, a few days before Dallas, Kenny O’Donnell, Chief of Staff, requested that the Secret Service agents not ride the rear running board of the Presidential car during parades involving political events so that the president would not be screened by an agent. I don’t know what form or detail that this request was made to the Secret Service who worked closely with O’Donnell. I also do not know who actually made the final decision, but we did not have agents on the rear of the President’s car in Dallas.” (emphasis added)

    Like Hill’s report mentioned above, please note the timing. Further, regarding the notion of JFK’s staff having a hand in this matter, in a letter to the author dated January 15, 2004, former agent Gerald O’Rourke, who was on Blaine’s shift on the Texas trip, wrote: “Did President Kennedy order us (agents) off the steps of the limo? To my knowledge President Kennedy never ordered us to leave the limo. You must remember at times we had to deal with the Chief of Staff.” (emphasis added) The agent added: “President Kennedy was easy to protect as he completely trusted the agents of the Secret Service. We always had to be entirely honest with him and up front so we did not lose his trust.” So, while both agents say JFK was easy to protect and that no order came from JFK, they imply, or seem to imply, that the Chief of Staff – O’Donnell – had something to do with this. More on this crucially important matter in a moment, as we shall look at the other advance agents and what they conveyed to this reviewer.

    J. Walter Coughlin, who helped do the San Antonio advance with the late Dennis Halterman (deceased 1988), wrote this reviewer: “In almost all parade situations that I was involved w[ith] we rode or walked the limo.” (emphasis added) Coughlin later wrote: “We often rode on the back of the car.” (For the record, Ned Hall II, who helped with the advance in Fort Worth, passed away in 1998; his son, Ned Hall III, had no comment to make on the matter. The other agent on the Fort Worth advance, Bill Duncan, never has said a thing regarding this issue, officially or otherwise, and it is not apparent if he was even contacted for Blaine’s book or not). Ronald Pontius, who helped advance the Houston stop with the late Bert deFreese (died sometime in the 1980’s), wrote this reviewer that JFK DID convey these alleged orders “through his staff,” (emphasis added) and here is why this “staff” notion is so important: This is a notion that Blaine doesn’t even touch in the book! For the record, Presidential Aide (Chief of Staff / Appointments Secretary) Kenneth P. O’Donnell does not mention anything with regard to telling the agents to remove themselves from the limousine (based on JFK’s alleged “desires”) during his lengthy Warren Commission testimony (nor to author William Manchester, nor even in his or his daughter’s books, for that matter); the same is true for the other two Presidential aides: Larry O’Brien and Dave Powers. In fact, Powers refutes this whole idea – he wrote this reviewer in a letter dated 9/10/93 that “they never had to be told to ‘get off’ the limousine.”

    JFK’s staff is not mentioned as a factor during any of the agents’ Warren Commission testimony, nor in the aforementioned five reports submitted in April 1964. Furthermore, Helen O’Donnell wrote this reviewer on 10/11/10: “Suffice to say that you are correct; JFK did not order anybody off the car, he never interfered with my dad’s direction on the Secret Service, and this is much backed up by my Dad’s tapes. I think and know from the tapes Dallas always haunted him because of the might-have-beens – but they involved the motorcade route [only].” In addition, former agents Art Godfrey and Kinney denounced the “staff/O’Donnell” notion to this reviewer, despite what a small minority of the agents I contacted – Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius – suggested (although, again, Yeager and O’Rourke agreed that JFK was easy to protect and that no order came from him).

    Just WHY are these seemingly contradictory accounts of this minority of agents’ Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius (seemingly contradictory, that is, to this reviewer AND definitely contradictory to Blaine) so very important? Because Blaine’s alleged 11/25/63 “meeting” mentions not a thing about staff interference or input, his BOOK mentions not a thing about staff interference or input, and, in fact, on page 352, Blaine even writes: “If ever asked about whether JFK had ordered them [the former agents] off the back of his car, the answer was always, “Oh, no. President Kennedy was wonderful. He was very easy to protect. No, I don’t remember him ever ordering agents off the back of his car.” (emphasis added) This is simply false. In addition to the aforementioned three agents (Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius), several agents contacted by the author would not comment, several would claim not to remember, and three (one, contacted by myself, the other two, via the HSCA) gave hazy second-hand information (of dubious quality) seeming to blame JFK after all!35 If that weren’t enough, Rufus Youngblood in his book36 and Emory Roberts in his report37, claimed it was THE MOTORCYCLES that got in the way of the agents (Ready especially) getting onto the rear of the car… geez.

    Finally, in addition to Blaine, former agents Lynn Meredith, Larry Newman, and Don Lawton mentioned the “Ivy League Charlatan” remark to myself, although none claimed to have heard it from JFK (Meredith told me: “I must admit that I was not along on the trip and was back at the White House with Caroline and John, Jr. .. I do not know first-hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine.” The former agent said that “No Secret Service agents riding on the rear of the limousine” was the number one reason JFK was killed! Newman, not interviewed for Blaine’s book, said “supposedly, I didn’t hear this directly” and that Manchester’s book was “part of myth, part of truth”. Newman added: “There was not a directive, per se” from President Kennedy to remove the agents from their positions on the back of his limousine. For his part, Lawton told me: “I didn’t hear the President say it, no. The word was relayed to us – I forget who told us now – you know, ‘come back to the follow-up car.’ ” Lawton also added: “Everyone felt bad. It was our job to protect the President. You still have regrets, remorse. Who knows, if they had left guys on the back of the car … you can hindsight yourself to death.”38)

    You see, almost none of these former agents were contacted by anyone other than this reviewer, as the agents had unlisted addresses and phone numbers; only the hospitality of a couple former agents led me to these men. Blaine’s comment on page 352 (and, indeed, his whole book) were aimed squarely at myself and my 22-page letter mentioned at the beginning of this review. After calling me a “self-described “Secret Service expert” – without actually naming me – on page 359 (guilty as charged; that said, The History Channel, Vince Bugliosi, the Assassination Records Review Board, and many authors and researchers have given me this tag), Blaine saves his special ire for me on page 360: “This same “expert” who had been interviewed for many conspiracy theory books relentlessly blamed the Secret Service for JFK’s death by using their own statements against them [no theories, just facts – it is what it is: they said what they said, they wrote what they wrote, and to a total stranger, to boot]. In many cases he called agents and recorded their conversations without their knowledge [not “in many cases”: only in a very few instances many years ago and these agents are now deceased. That said, thank God I did: WHO would choose to believe my word NOW, especially with Blaine’s book out now for public consumption?]” And HERE is the kicker, in the context of the aforementioned alleged “meeting” Blaine detailed on pages 285-289 (and on page 352), Blaine continues (still on page 360): “When asked whether President Kennedy had ever ordered the agents off the back of his car, the agents gave him the standard line that Chief Rowley requested they give. And as the agents upheld their code, Rowley’s words from the day of President Kennedy’s funeral resonating in their minds, the Secret Service “expert” turned around and used their words to stab them – and their brothers – in the back with baseless accusations.” Incredible.

    There was NO morning-of-JFK’s-funeral-meeting to cover for the dead president so he wouldn’t be blamed for ordering the agents off his car – this was used as a clever device to diffuse and cast aside the damning evidence of just what all these men (including BLAINE himself!) said and wrote to me, many of whom died years before this book – and this alleged meeting – was even a figment of Blaine’s imagination. Again, there is no documentation for this 47-year-old meeting – we have to take Blaine, the “sole survivor” of this alleged meeting, at his word. And, what – all these men are LIARS now for what they said and wrote to myself? In the context of my 22-page letter, I believe this “meeting” to be a total fabrication. But it IS clever for another reason: I am sure there WAS most likely a meeting regarding the security detail’s coverage of all the dignitaries and their walk with Jackie to St. Matthew’s Cathedral and so forth; a clever cover story, indeed.

    VI: Agent Boring Is Not

    That said, there are two major reasons why Blaine’s 47-year-old cover story is patently false: first, several important non-Secret Service agents (Dave Powers, Congressman Sam Gibbons, Marty Underwood, Helen O’Donnell, and Pierre Salinger, among others, such as various newsmen on 11/22/63, etc.39) ALSO told this reviewer that JFK did NOT interfere with the Secret Service or order the agents off his car – what “code” would THEY have been following, Mr. Blaine? Why would they be “lying” to me? (Yes, I am being facetious.) Perhaps this is why Blaine chose to ignore the other cover story of blaming the staff: He had no control over THEIR refutations.

    The second reason also reveals an embarrassing error on Blaine’s part – he writes on page 360: “If these “experts” [me!] and “researchers” had only read some of the documents that were released in 1992 and available online, they would have found a letter from Chief James J. Rowley written in response to J. Lee Rankin, general counsel on the Warren Commission, in which Rowley admitted what he so desperately did not want to become public. He did not want it to look as if the Secret Service was in any way blaming President Kennedy for his own death. ” (emphasis added; see also page 289 of Blaine’s book) Epic Fail – not only does this book achieve Rowley’s “non-goal” of blaming JFK for the security inefficiencies in Dallas, but these “documents” were released in 1964 in the Warren Commission Volumes: 18 H 803–9, to be exact! In addition, Rowley’s alleged “desperation” to ‘hide’ JFK’s own alleged culpability in his own death was a monster failure of epic proportions: as we know, Clint Hill testified to the Warren Commission40 and this testimony was mentioned in the Warren Report, a massive best-seller which was also quoted by many major newspapers and magazines the world over and, if that weren’t enough, the five reports were mentioned by Jim Bishop in his own massive best-seller The Day Kennedy Was Shot. Many other books mention these reports (and/or Hill’s testimony). And just WHY would Rowley even NEED these five after-the-fact reports? Why didn’t he just tell Rankin, in “confidence,” about the meeting they all supposedly had on the matter on 11/25/63?

    Why, indeed. For what it’s worth, Blaine (on pages 360-363) proceeds to quote from the five reports but does NOT state what they each say in verbatim fashion. Interestingly, nothing is mentioned specifically about JFK’s alleged desires regarding THE motorcade of November 22, 1963, as was requested by the Commission. And, of the five Secret Service reports, four have as their primary source for JFK’s alleged request Agent Boring, including one by Boring himself, while the remaining report, written by SAIC Behn, mentions the same November 18, 1963 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do (Boring’s report was the first one written, then came one each from Roberts, Ready, Behn, and Hill, respectively). Again, both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author, while Roberts report is nothing more than his having heard BORING telling him to have the agents removed from the car on 11/18/63; Ready and Hill freely admit they weren’t even ON the Tampa trip in the first place in these reports (and, as Blaine omits), Hill wrote “I do not know from whom I received this information … I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President.” (emphasis added) In addition, agents did ride on the rear of the limousine on July 2, 1963 and November 18, 1963 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.41 Needless to say, with Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports, the official Secret Service ‘explanation’ falls like a house of cards.

    All these reports are supposedly evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963.

    Importantly, no mention is made of any alleged orders via President Kennedy’s staff.

    And, again, there is nothing about what JFK said or “requested” on November 22, 1963, the critical day in question!

    As a “postscript” to Blaine’s cover stories about the agents removal from the car, on page 343 of his book, Blaine makes yet another embarrassing error: “When it came to the agents and whether they should or should not have been on the back of the car, the [Warren ] report stated that “the configuration of the presidential car and the seating arrangements of the Secret Service agents in the car did not afford the Secret Service agents the opportunity they should have had to be of immediate assistance to the president at the first sign of danger,” but this was in reference to AGENT ROY KELLERMAN’S position in the front seat and the obstacles he may have faced, NOT the agents who should have been on or near the REAR of the car using the UNOBSTRUCTED grab-handles!

    VII: Uniquely Insecure

    Regarding the issue of the bubbletop, although Blaine (on page 188) states that agent Lawson conveyed to Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, that the bubbletop was to be removed in Dallas, Sam told this reviewer on 10/19/92 and, again, on 3/4/94 and 4/15/94: “It was my fault the top was off [the limousine in Dallas] – I am the sole responsibility of that.”42 In addition, Kinney’s oft-ignored report dated November 30, 1963 confirms this fact43, as does the former agent’s recently-released February 26, 1978 HSCA interview: “… SA Kinney indicated that he felt that his was the responsibility for making the final decision about whether to use the bubble-top.”44 Blaine later states, on page 244, that the bubbletop “was meant to shield the passengers from the weather – he [agent Sam Kinney] could count on one hand how many times it had been used,” but this is simply untrue on two counts: the bubbletop was often used in nice weather conditions and was used more frequently that Blaine, speaking for the long-deceased Kinney (died 7/21/97), admits.45 On page 193, Blaine states that agent Henry J. Rybka “never worked [the] follow-up [car], other than driving,” yet the record indicates otherwise.46

    Predictably, on pages 306-307 & 312-313, Blaine covers up the infamous drinking incident involving NINE agents of the Secret Service, including Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Glen Bennett, and Jack Ready! Interestingly, they were all from Shift Leader Emory Roberts’ particular shift. Significantly, none of the agents from the V.P. LBJ detail were involved in the drinking incident.47

    Blaine doesn’t even touch the issue of the Secret Service and their involvement of removing motorcycle coverage for JFK on 11/22/63. During a November 19, 1963 security meeting in Dallas, with no Secret Service men present, it was agreed that eighteen motorcycles would be used, some positioned along side the limousine, similar to the plan used in the prior Texas cities of San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth.48 However, there was another meeting on November 21, 1963 in which those plans were changed.49 Captain Perdue Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified to the Warren Commission: “I heard one of the Secret Service men say that President Kennedy did not desire any motorcycle officer directly on each side of him, between him and the crowd, but he would want the officers to the rear.”

    And yet:

    Mr. Dulles: “… do you recall that any orders were given by or on behalf of the President with regard to the location of those motorcycles that were particularly attached to his car?”

    Mr. Lawson: Not specifically at this instance orders from him.” (emphasis added)50

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) summed up the situation best:

    The Secret Service’s alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions … Surprisingly, the security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure.51

    Blaine ALSO does not deal with the issue of the press and photographer’s displacement from the motorcade. Dallas Morning News reporter Tom Dillard testified to the Warren Commission:

    We lost our position at the airport. I understood we were to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, normally a truck precedes the President on these things [motorcades] and certain representatives of the photographic press ride with the truck. In this case, as you know, we didn’t have any and this car that I was in was to take photographs which was of spot-news nature.52

    On pages 221-222, Blaine, referring to the president’s physician, Admiral George Burkley, writes:

    Normally the admiral rode in a staff car in the motorcade, or in the rear seat of the follow-up car, but he and the president’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, had misjudged the timing of the motorcade’s departure from Love Field and wound up scurrying to the VIP bus. He was furious for not having been in his normal seat but had nobody to blame but himself. His sole purpose for being in the motorcade was to be close to the president in case anything happened, but who could have predicted this?” (emphasis added)

    Again, the record indicates otherwise: “Dr. George Burkley … felt that he should be close to the President at all times … Dr. Burkley was unhappy … this time the admiral protested. He could be of no assistance to the President if a doctor was needed quickly.”53 Burkley also said: “It’s not right … the President’s personal physician should be much closer to him,” even to the extent of “… sitting on an agent’s lap”.54 Burkley stated a few years after the assassination:

    I accompanied President Kennedy on every trip that he took during his time as President … I went on all trips … we had a regular setup … all the possible angles were covered by cooperation with the Secret Service, in that we knew the areas of most likely danger. We knew where additional medical aid would be available, and things of that nature … When we were in Fort Worth, Mrs. [Evelyn] Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade … [in Dallas] I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the follow up car or the lead car … this was brought to their [the Secret Service’s] attention very strongly at the foot of the stairway from the airplane [Air Force One] … Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President. This was one of the few times that this did not occur. (emphasis added)55

    In fact, Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on November 18, 1963.56 “The only other time that it did not occur, to my direct recollection, is when we were in Rome [July 2, 1963]”57 (emphasis added), which was a model of very good security in every other respect.

    Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, confirmed Burkley’s feelings on the matter to the HSCA:

    Mrs. Lincoln also mentioned what she thought was a curious incident in Dallas prior to the assassination. She said she was with Dr. Burkley … when they left Love Field for the beginning of the motorcade. She said they were somewhat surprised at being ‘shoved’ back in the motorcade into a bus. She said they usually rode in an automobile a few cars behind the car carrying the President.58

    It appears even Jackie Kennedy and, by extension, Dave Powers, were wondering about this situation regarding Burkley: On the weekend after President Kennedy’s funeral, Powers showed Mrs. Kennedy the color still frames from the Zapruder film as displayed in that week’s Life magazine. The pictures, of course, depict Jackie leaving the rear seat to crawl onto the back of the car. “Dave, what do you think I was trying to do?” she asked. Dave could only suggest that maybe she was searching for the President’s doctor, Rear Admiral George G. Burkley, who was in a bus at the rear of the motorcade.”59

    Incredibly, as documented in agent Andy Berger’s report60, Blaine writes on page 233, with regard to Parkland Hospital: “A representative of the CIA appeared a while later.” Also, as Blaine never even mentions, JFK’s Military Aide, General Godfrey McHugh, a devout Kennedy loyalist was relegated to the distant VIP car in the Dallas motorcade61, stated that he was asked by the Secret Service “for the first time” to “ride in a car in the back [of the motorcade], instead, as normally I would do, between the driver and the Secret Service agent in charge of the trip.”62

    Indeed, McHugh had just occupied this very spot on JFK’s previous trip to Florida, not to mention countless other times beforehand when either he or fellow military aide, General Ted Clifton, rode in this position. (Greer admitted that many times an aide rode in the front seat of the limo with the driver and the supervisor63, as the film and photo record bears out.) McHugh admitted that this was “unusual”: “That’s exactly what I thought.” The reason? “To give the President full exposure … they told me it would be helpful politically to the President.”64 (emphasis added)

    There’s that qualifier again: “politically.” The HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, who interviewed McHugh, reported: “Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure.”65

    In yet another matter Blaine chose to ignore, Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, who rode in the lead car with Lawson and Sorrels, told his men to in no way participate in the security of the motorcade.66 As verified in several films and photos, Decker’s men were standing idle at the corner of Main and Houston as mere spectators, nothing more. Indeed, Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney told author Larry Sneed: “I was merely a spectator with a number of other plain clothes officers on Main Street just north of the Old Red Court House. We in the sheriff’s department had nothing to do with security.”67

    Decker had given this unusual order to his men after telling Forrest Sorrels the previous day that he had agreed to incorporate additional personnel for security purposes, and even offered his full support to the agent: Decker had agreed to furnishing fifteen of his men for duty!68 Incredibly, the Dallas Morning News on October 26, 1963 reported the following, based on an interview with DPD Chief Jesse Curry: “LARGE POLICE GUARD PLANNED FOR KENNEDY – Signs Friday pointed to the greatest concentration of Dallas police ever for the protection of a high-ranking dignitary when President Kennedy visits Dallas next month … The deployment of the special force, he [Curry] said, is yet to be worked out with the U.S. Secret Service.”69 Yet Homicide Detective Gus Rose said: “I didn’t hear of any extraordinary security measures being set up thus we continued our normal rotation.”70

    Blaine also is seemingly unaware of the following, as noted by reporter Seth Kantor: “Will Fritz’s men called off nite before by SS. Had planned to ride closed car w/ machine guns in car behind Pres.” (Which could mean someplace behind JFK’s car, as was the case in Chicago, IL, on 3/23/6371 & New York on 11/15/63.)72

    Furthermore, Milton Wright, a Texas Highway Patrolman who was the driver of Mayor Cabell’s car, wrote this reviewer: “As I recall, prior to the President arriving at the airport we were already staged on the tarmac. I do not recall what position I was in at that time but it was not #1[the number taped to his car’s windshield]. At the last minute there was a lot of shuffling and I ended up in the 5th vehicle. My vehicle was the last to leave downtown after the shooting because the police set up a road block behind my car.”73

    On page 224, Blaine writes: “It was very rare for both the president and vice president to be together at the same time in the same place.” This is an understatement – being in the same MOTORCADE was unique!74 Agent Youngblood later wrote: “It is strictly taboo, from the security standpoint, for the President and the Vice President to ride together in the same car, boat, plane, wagon, or anything else.”75 As J. F. terHorst (from the White House Press Corps), a man who covered every major presidential trip – including November 22, 1963 – both at home and abroad, and Colonel Ralph Albertazzie (Nixon’s Air Force One pilot) observed in their book: Beyond the Environs of Washington, the Vice President rarely accompanies the President. The reason is not only a matter of physical security but one of politics … But Texas was a special case, the exception that proved the rule.”76 As HSCA attorney Belford Lawson succinctly put it: “Why for the first time in American history were the President and Vice-President together in the same motorcade?”77

    Blaine ALSO ignores the fact that the roofs along the route were not manned or checked. SAIC of the Nashville office Paul Doster told the Nashville Banner back on May 18, 1963 that “a complete check of the entire motorcade route” was done for JFK’s trip to Nashville. In addition, Doster stated: “Other [police] officers were assigned atop the municipal terminal and other buildings along the route. These men took their posts at 8 a.m. and remained at their rooftop stations until the president and his party passed.” The roofs of buildings were also guarded on November 18, 196378, four short days before Dallas, in addition to San Antonio on November 21, 196379, just the day before, as well as in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination.80

    VIII: Driving Questions

    On page 201, regarding agent Bill Greer, the driver of JFK’s car in Dallas, Blaine writes: “And, God forbid, if he [Greer] ever did have to make a sudden getaway, he knew the 7,500-pound car with its 300-horsepower engine just didn’t gather speed as quickly as he would like.” If that wasn’t enough, Blaine adds, on page 212: “[Greer, after the shooting commenced] quickly tapped on the brake to see how the car would respond.” Finally, on page 356, Blaine delivers the coup de grace: “Yes, Bill Greer put his foot on the brake after the first shot. But for God’s sake, it had nothing to do with a conspiracy, or negligence – he was merely responding as any professionally trained driver would respond.”

    Oh, really? Sixty witnesses (ten police officers, seven Secret Service agents, thirty-eight spectators, two Presidential aides, one Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer’s deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two separate looks back at JFK during the assassination81 (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission82). By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President’s life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination. When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line before the fatal shot struck the President’s head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt. As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: “Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn’t believe me.”83 Ken O’Donnell stated: “Greer had been remorseful all day, feeling that he could have saved President Kennedy’s life by swerving the car or speeding suddenly after the first shots.”84 In addition, Greer told Jackie the following on November 22, 1963 at Parkland Hospital, shortly after the murder: “Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it, I didn’t hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn’t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I’d seen it in time! Oh!”85 Finally, Dave Powers confirmed Greer’s guilt to CBS newsman Charles Kuralt on November 22, 1988, also adding that if Greer would have sped up before the fatal headshot, JFK might still be alive today.86

    When this reviewer asked Richard Greer, the surviving son of Bill Greer, on 9/17/91: “What did your father think of JFK?” Richard did not respond the first time. When this author asked him a second time, Greer responded: “Well, we’re Methodists … and JFK was Catholic.” Bill Greer was born and raised in County Tyrone, Ireland, coming to America in February 1930 and, if that weren’t enough, “worked one summer on the estate of Henry Cabot Lodge,”87 JFK’s two-time political opponent (a staunch Republican defeated twice by Kennedy) and Ambassador to Saigon during the CIA and U.S. government–sponsored assassination of President Diem of Vietnam on November 2, 1963 (Lodge was principally involved88). Obviously, Greer, just from his association with Lodge, as well as his work in and around Boston, had to have known about Kennedy, as well as his rich family, Ambassador father Joe, and their controversial heritage of alleged bootlegging, Nazi sympathizing, and political history in Boston.89

    The sequence is crucial:

    1. First shot (or shots) rings out: the car slows.
    2. Greer turns around once.
    3. Kellerman orders Greer to “get out of line; we’ve been hit!”
    4. Greer disobeys his superior’s order and turns around to stare at JFK for the second time, until after the fatal headshot finds its mark!

    As stated before, Greer was responsible, at fault, and felt remorse. In short, Greer had survivor’s guilt.

    But, then, stories and feelings changed.

    Agent Greer to the FBI, November 22, 1963: “Greer stated that he first heard what he thought was possibly a motorcycle backfire and glanced around and noticed that the President had evidently been hit [notice that, early on, Greer admits seeing JFK, which the Zapruder proves he did two times before the fatal head shot occurred]. He thereafter got on the radio and communicated with the other vehicles, stating that they desired to get the President to the hospital immediately [in reality, Greer did not talk on the radio, and Greer went on to deny ever saying this during his Warren Commission testimony] … Greer stated that they (the Secret Service) have always been instructed to keep the motorcade moving at a considerable speed inasmuch as a moving car offers a much more difficult target than a vehicle traveling at a very slow speed. He pointed out that on numerous occasions he has attempted to keep the car moving at a rather fast rate, but in view of the President’s popularity and desire to maintain close liaison with the people, he has, on occasion, been instructed by the President to ‘slow down’.90 Greer stated that he has been asking himself if there was anything he could have done to avoid this incident, but stated that things happened so fast that he could not account for full developments in this matter … .”91 [The “JFK-as-scapegoat” theme – and so much for Greer’s remorse from earlier the same day.]

    Finally, what did Jacqueline Kennedy think of Greer’s performance on 11/22/63? Mary Gallagher reported in her book: “She mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, ‘He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!’ “92 Jackie also told Gallagher: “You should get yourself a good driver so that nothing ever happens to you.”93 Secret Service agent Marty Venker confirmed that the agent Jackie was referring to was Agent Greer: “If the agent had hit the gas before the third shot, she griped, Jack might still be alive.”94 Later, authors C. David Heymann and Edward Klein further corroborated that the agent Mrs. Kennedy was referring to was indeed Greer.95 Manchester wrote: “[Mrs. Kennedy] had heard Kellerman on the radio and had wondered why it had taken the car so long to leave.”96 In addition, Jackie “played the events over and over in her mind … . She did not want to accept Jack’s death as a freak accident, for that meant his life could have been spared – if only the driver in the front seat of the presidential limousine [Agent William R. Greer] had reacted more quickly and stepped on the gas … if only the Secret Service had stationed agents on the rear bumper … .”97 (emphasis added)

    Incredibly, ASAIC Roy Kellerman told the following to FBI agents’ Sibert & O’Neil on the night of the murder: “The advanced security arrangements made for this specific trip were the most stringent and thorough ever employed by the Secret Service for the visit of a President to an American city.”98 Perhaps THIS is why JFK reassured a worried San Antonio Congressman Henry Gonzalez on 11/21/63 by saying: “The Secret Service told me that they had taken care of everything – there’s nothing to worry about.”99 If that weren’t enough, President Kennedy told an equally concerned advance man, Marty Underwood, on 11/21/63: in Houston, “Marty, you worry about me too much.”100

    On pages 230-231, Blaine seeks to pass the blame on to others once again, this time in the form of JFK’s Chief of Staff, Ken O’Donnell: “Ken O’Donnell agreed… that Johnson should return to Washington as soon as possible and that yes, he should leave Dallas on Air Force One.” However, O’Donnell denied this, telling author William Manchester: “The President and I had no conversation regarding Air Force One. If we had known he was going on Air Force One, we would have taken Air Force Two. One plane was like the other.”101 In fact, when Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission asked O’Donnell, “Was there any discussion about his [LBJ] taking the presidential plane, AF–1, as opposed to AF–2?” O’Donnell responded: “There was not.”102 In this regard, O’Donnell later wrote in his book Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye that a Warren Commission attorney – the aforementioned Arlen Specter – asked him to “change his testimony so that it would agree with the President’s”: an offer O’Donnell refused.103 With this in mind, author Jim Bishop reported: “Emory Roberts suggested that Johnson leave at once for Air Force One … Roberts asked Kenny O’Donnell and he said: ‘Yes.’ Johnson refused to move. Roberts returned to O’Donnell and asked again: ‘Is it all right for Mr. Johnson to board Air Force One now?’ ‘Yes,’ O’Donnell said, ‘Yes.’ ” (emphasis added)104

    This author believes O’Donnell when he says he had no part in LBJ going to Air Force One over Air Force Two. This was a Secret Service (Emory Roberts) decision. Presidential aides Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers best summed up the situation when they wrote: “Roberts, one of President Kennedy’s agents … had decided to switch to Johnson as soon as Kennedy was shot.”105 In addition, four other authors have noted Agent Roberts’ “switch of allegiance”, including Chief Curry.106 Incredibly, Roberts was the President’s receptionist during the Johnson administration while still a member of the Secret Service, receiving a Special Service Award from the Treasury Department for improving communications and services to the public in 1968!107 LBJ thought highly of Roberts, and the feeling was mutual – President Johnson told a gathering that “Emory Roberts, who I am sorry can’t be here today – he greets me every morning and tells me good-bye every night.”108 (For the record, LBJ didn’t think much of Roy Kellerman: “This fellow Kellerman … he was about as loyal a man as you could find. But he was about as dumb as an ox.”109)

    Also predictably, on pages 334-335 & 356-357, Blaine seeks to minimize former agent Abraham Bolden’s claims of Secret Service negligence and conspiracy.110

    Blaine (on pages 350 and 352) seeks to cast away ANY notion that the Secret Service agents believed there was a conspiracy, yet there is the record that says differently:

    From the February 22, 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) interview of Miami SAIC John Marshall, former White House Detail agent who conducted all the advance work on President Kennedy’s frequent trips to Palm Beach: TWICE DURING THE INTERVIEW, MR. MARSHALL MENTIONED THAT, FOR ALL HE KNEW, SOMEONE IN THE SECRET SERVICE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME AN AGENT HAS MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A CONSPIRACY EXISTED, BUT IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT AN AGENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SECRET SERVICE COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

    In addition, former agents Jerry O’Rourke, Sam Kinney, Abraham Bolden, and Maurice Martineau believed there was a conspiracy, as well!111

    IX: Perfect Sense

    The Kennedy Detail, a book firmly rooted in the “Oswald-did-it-alone” camp, also contains contradictory evidence of conspiracy in its pages. On page 216, Blaine describes the shooting sequence in this manner: “… the first shot strikes the president, the second shot strikes Governor Connally, and the third shot strikes JFK in the head … ” There is no acknowledgement of the Warren Commission’s fictional single bullet theory or the known missed shot that struck bystander James Tague! This is a pattern Hill and Blaine repeat on national television.112 On page 217, Blaine writes that agent Clint Hill saw “a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head,” clear evidence that JFK was struck by a shot from the FRONT, as also confirmed by Hill’s report113 and Warren Commission testimony114, not to mention the reports (plural) from fellow agent Paul Landis (whose contents were confirmed by Landis to the HSCA)115, no matter what Landis or Blaine say now (see pages 225 & 352-353), as well as the statements made by agent Sam Kinney to Vince Palamara116 (and, ironically, in Blaine’s own book, pages 216 & 218, regarding blood hitting his windshield!) and agent Win Lawson, who also “saw a huge hole in the back of the president’s head.”117 Blaine also uses this same language later in the book (page 258):

    Now the men who just four and a half hours earlier had seen the back of President Kennedy’s head blown off hauled the casket holding his dead body…” Finally, regarding Hill, Blaine describes his friends’ recollections of the autopsy (page 266): “Six inches down from the neckline, just to the right of the spinal column, there was a small wound, a hole in the skin… All Clint could see was that the right rear portion of President Kennedy’s head was completely gone.

    On page 261, Blaine writes: “[7:55 p.m., 11/22/63] For about twenty minutes [Chief James J] Rowley gave [the agents] what could only be called a pep talk… There was no feeling that he blamed anyone or that the assassination could somehow have been prevented.” On page 275, Blaine says of SAIC Behn (deceased 4/21/93): “From everything Jerry Behn had heard about the tragedy in Dallas, nobody was to blame.” Blaine carries this incredibly dumb statement even further during television interviews for the book – he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on 11/12/10: “No, there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.”

    On pages 264-265, Blaine related how he almost shot President Johnson on 11/23/63 with his Thompson submachine gun, a tale of dubious merit that garnered much press before the release of the book.

    Blaine seems to be unaware of the following, as reported by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998: “Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy’s trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President’s travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant.”118

    On page 359, Blaine identifies the agent recalled at Love Field as SA Don Lawton, the OTHER agent (along with SA Henry Rybka) “ostensibly” left to secure Love Field for the President’s departure, and takes this reviewer to task for his misidentification. In the interest of time, please see this reviewer’s online videos wherein he fully explains himself, his rationale, and his belief that, regardless of WHO the agent is (and he is willing to concede that it was probably Lawton after all), the SUBSTANCE of what is being depicted in the video – the essence – remains the same.119 Suffice to say that many people were “fooled” by this footage – former JFK agent Larry Newman, the ARRB, The History Channel, Rybka’s family, millions of YouTube viewers, countless authors and researchers, and even a December 2009 Discovery Channel Secret Service documentary “Secrets of the Secret Service”!

    Although very well written, along with some nice photographs, as well, The Kennedy Detail is really a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history (a la Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi, who believe 11/22/63 was the act of a single lone man) and absolve the agents of their collective survivor’s guilt (and to counter the prolific writings of a certain reviewer). In the eyes of those from The Kennedy Detail, the assassination was the act of TWO “lone men”: Oswald, who pulled the trigger, and JFK, who set himself up as the target. Simply put: President Kennedy WAS indeed a very nice man, did not interfere with the actions of the Secret Service, did not order the agents off his limousine (in Tampa, in Dallas, or elsewhere), and did not have his staff convey any anti-security sentiments, either. The sheer force and power of what these men all told me, a complete stranger, in correspondence and on the phone, is all the more strong because, not only did they have a vested interest to protect themselves, the vast majority believe that Oswald acted alone and that all official “stories” are correct.

    In light of the work of this reviewer, future pensions, professional and personal reputations, and so forth, The Kennedy Detail makes perfect sense. After the reviewer’s letter to Clint Hill, it truly WAS “a book that HAD to be written.” A postscript: Gerald Blaine stated on 11/11/10 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: “We felt we were 100% failure.”120

    Finally, you said something we can ALL agree on, Mr. Blaine.


    End Notes

    1. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-clint-hill.html

    2. Available in soft cover from 1993-1997 & 1999-2005 (self-published); available 1997-1998 via JFK Lancer Publications; available since 2006 as a free online book here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    3. http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/the_kennedy_detail_is_a_story; see also page 364 of Blaine’s book

    4. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

    5. http://kennedydetail.blogspot.com/2010/09/association-of-former-agents-of-united.html

    6. For the record, Clint Hill was interviewed by: Warren Commission (March 9, 1964), for Manchester, The Death of a President (November 18, 1964; May 20, 1965), and 60 Minutes (December 7, 1975; November 1993); December 1963 newsreel regarding Treasury award (with C. Douglas Dillon as presenter); Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter? (CBS, November 19, 1993); The Secret Service and Inside the Secret Service videos (1995); Inside the U.S. Secret Service documentary (2004); Larry King Live (March 22, 2006); and, now, numerous TV shows 2010

    7. Rodham was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s uncle! I received confirmation of this via former agent Don Cox.

    8. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newslettersnewsletterbucketbooksmack/887623-439/qa_former_kennedy_secret_service.html.csp

    9. Ibid

    10. “Survivor’s Guilt”, Palamara, Chapter 13, page 9

    11. Bolden is also the author of The Echo From Dealey Plaza (2008)

    12. The agents we DO know were involved in “The Kennedy Detail”, based on the text of the book and Blaine’s online blogs and so forth (and the upcoming Discovery tv documentary), are the following: Gerald Blaine, Clint Hill, Joe Paolella, Chuck Zboril, Robert Faison, Hamilton Brown, Walt Coughlin, Richard Johnsen, Ken Wiesman, Radford Jones, Winston Lawson, Toby Chandler, Ron Pontius, David Grant (Clint Hill’s brother-in-law!), Paul Rundle, Eve Dempsher, Tom Wells and Paul Landis. That leaves, from the Texas trip, Sam Sulliman, John Ready, Warren “Woody” Taylor, Lem Johns, Jerry Bechtle, Donald Bendickson, Jim Goodenough, Bill Duncan, PRS Dale Wunderlich, Mike Howard (Dallas office), John Joe Howlett (Dallas office), Roger Warner, Bob Burke, Frank Yeager, Don Lawton, Ken Giannoules, and Ernest Olsson as still living and eligible to have been interviewed… maybe.

    13. Author’s interview with Gerald Blaine 6/10/05

    14. “The Dark Side Of Camelot” by Seymour Hersh, pages 40-241

    15. 5H 570

    16. U. E. Baughman, Secret Service Chief (New York: Harper & Row, Popular Library edition, January 1963), p. 70.

    17. Rowley oral history, LBJ Library, January 22, 1969, p. 2. See also David Seidman, Extreme Careers – Secret Service Agents: Life Protecting the President (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2003), p. 11. Rowley himself said: “Most Presidents have responded to our requests … .”

    18. CE1025: 18 H 803-809. I have dealt with these reports exhaustively in my own book (Survivor’s Guilt: see Chapter one in entirety) and on my online blog – please see http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2010/10/kennedy-detail.html

    19. The Death of a President by William Manchester, pp. 37-38 (all references to Manchester’s book are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition.)

    20. http://news.discovery.com/history/jfk-assassination-secret-service.html

    21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAq5kgU6YI

    22. http://thekennedydetailsecretservicejfk.blogspot.com/

    23. E-mail to Vince Palamara from Tony Zappone dated 10/20/10

    24. Author’s interview with Floyd Boring 9/22/93

    25. Author’s interview with Floyd Boring dated 3/4/94. For the relevant AUDIO portions of this interview, please see:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC9l1AdGJj0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZZ4dnWyu_Q
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMr9-Eg5NvE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRX37HVx5E

    26. Floyd Boring letter to Vince Palamara dated 11/22/97

    27. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    28. Manchester, p. 667. Of the 21 agents/officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts, Greer, Kinney, and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the advance agent for Tampa (riding in the lead car), Greer drove JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the commander of the follow-up car. That said, in the author’s opinion, Roberts is still the main suspect of the four as being Manchester’s dubious source for this quote: after all, he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio transmission. The others – Greer, Kinney, and Blaine – were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book (see next footnote). Also, unlike the other three, Roberts was interviewed twice and, while Greer never went on record with his feelings about the matter, one way or the other, Kinney adamantly denied the veracity of Manchester’s information, while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although he did mention the “Ivy league charlatan” remark coming from a secondary source. Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by Manchester, Blaine is the only agent – save two headquarters Inspectors (see next footnote) – whose interview comments are not to be found in the text or index. Since, in addition to Blaine, three other agents – Lawton, Meredith and Newman – also mentioned the remark to this reviewer strictly as hearsay, in some fashion or another, it is more than likely that Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its significance … and attributed it to Boring, while his actual source was likely Roberts and/or Blaine. Again, since Boring wasn’t interviewed, the comment had to come second-hand from another agent, who, in turn, received the remark second-hand from Boring. Ultimately, the question is: did Boring really give out this order on instructions from JFK?

    29. Interestingly, Manchester, having interviewed 21 different agents/officials for his book (pp. 660–9), chose to include interviews with Secret Service Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner. What’s the problem? Well, these men, not even associated with the Texas trip in any way, were interviewed more than any of the other agents: four times each (Peterson: October 9, 1964, November 17, 1964, November 18, 1964, February 5, 1965; Warner: June 2, 1964, November 18, 1964, February 5, 1965, May 12, 1965)! Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two interviews apiece, while all the other agents/officials garnered just one inter-view each. And, more importantly, unlike all the other 19 agents, save one, Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent), these two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or the index; their comments are “invisible” to the reader. It appears, then, that Manchester’s book was truly a sanitized, “official” book, more so than we thought before (as most everyone knows, the book was written with Jackie Kennedy’s approval – it was her idea, in fact [p.ix]. Manchester even had early, exclusive access to the Warren Commission itself: “At the outset of my inquiry the late Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed me an ex officio member of his commission … and provided me with an office in Washington’s VFW building, where the commission met and where copies of reports and depositions were made available to me.” [p. xix]) Inspector Peterson figured prominently in the post-assassination press dealings (or lack thereof) – as Agent Sorrels testified: “… I don’t think at any time you will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or television that we said anything because Mr. Kelley, the Inspector, told me, ‘Any information that is given out will have to come from Inspector Peterson in Washington.’ ” [7 H 359] Peterson became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968 [20 Years in the Secret Service by Rufus Youngblood (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973), p. 220], while Inspector Warner would go on to become Director of Public Affairs (a position he held until the 1990s), acting as a buffer to critical press questions during the assassination attempts on President Ford and other related matters [The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003) by Philip Melanson with Peter Stevens, pp. 101, 201, 224, 237]. Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie In The Line of Fire.

    30. Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4C4mfCp1DY and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGq9rpuBM1A

    31. 2 H 136–7

    32. See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L17N6OxrBps and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdM6WXqXjIo

    33. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGq9rpuBM1A and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxaEim-7Zqs

    34. Stout’s son, Stu Stout III, wrote this reviewer on 11/1/10: “Vince. Thought I would mention that one of the influential people that attended the advance planning meetings for the Dallas trip was the Mayor of Dallas in 63 and I think it was Earle Cabell or Eric? Doesn’t really matter. I distinctly …remember during a conversation at the dinner table weeks following (that surreal day), my father telling my mother that “the Mayor thought agents riding on the back of the car (which was common protocol) would send a message and did not want his city to appear dangerous to the world though the media. He asked for subtle security exposure if and where possible.”On that day only two individuals would have been able to direct such an order and that would have been the President himself or Floyd Boring SAIC. In my opinion, and you know about opinions, if you find out who else was in that chain of command “during that moment” you will be able to rationally determine why the agents jumped down for a portion of that politically motivated route through the city. Take care Vince and please don’t give up.”

    35. See pages 30-32 of http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    36. 20 Years in the Secret Service (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973), p. 111

    37. 18 H 783

    38. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    39. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    40. 2 H 136–7

    41. Italy film clip, courtesy Jim Cedrone of the JFK Library; newly discovered still photos from Naples: John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Life In Pictures by Yann-Brice Dherbier and Pierre-Henri Verlhac (New York: Phaidon Press, 2003), p. 183, 231; Corbis stock pho-tos discovered by the author in 2005 (and also forwarded to former agents Blaine, Coughlin, ad O’Rourke). Regarding Italy: See also Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye by Kenneth P. O’Donnell, David F. Powers, and Joseph McCarthy (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972), p. 433 [note: all references to this book are from the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 1973]; Tampa Tribune, November 19, 1963 (downtown area picture with agents Lawton and Zboril holding onto the rear handrails); Cecil Stoughton photo, taken from the follow-up car, November 18, 1963 (suburban area picture depicting same); short clip in David Wolper’s 1964 film Four Days In November, depicting the start of the Tampa trip: agent Zboril is running on the left-rear end of the limo, holding onto the handrail, while agent Berger is riding on the opposite side; agent Lawton is seen running along Berger’s side; black and white photos discovered by Ian Griggs and Frank Debenedictis; black and white photos from photographers Tony Zappone and Tommy Eure.

    42. See also http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter03.pdf

    43. 18 H 730

    44. RIF#180–10078–10493

    45. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJrnxzowSE; http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter03.pdf; see also the many pics at http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

    46. Advance man Jerry Bruno’s notes from the JFK Library in Boston. Agent Henry Rybka was also on the follow-up car team in San Antonio on November 21, 1963( as had driver agent George Hickey in Tampa and in Dallas). Rybka was not the driver

    47. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter06.pdf

    48. 11 HSCA 527; 7 H 577–580; 21 H 567; RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977). Please see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter06.pdf

    49. 7 H 580–1; 11 HSCA 527, 529; RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977).

    50. 4 H 338

    51. See also RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977) – the original language used for this passage: “But in comparison with what the SS’s own documents suggest were the security precautions used in prior motorcades during the same Texas visit, the motorcade alteration in Dallas by the SS may have been a unique occurrence.”

    52. 6 H 163. As the author presented at the COPA ’96 and Lancer ’97 conferences, the press photographers frequently rode in a flatbed truck in front of the motorcade pro-cession [films courtesy JFK Library; see also John F. Kennedy: A Life in Pictures, pp. 178–180, 183, 231]. Photographer Tony Zappone confirmed to the author on December 18, 2003 that a flat bed truck was used for the photographers in Tampa, Florida, on November 18, 1963.

    53. Bishop, pp. 109–110, 134

    54. Manchester, pp. 131–2. See also The Flying White House, p. 209 (O’Donnell seems to get the blame for Burkley’s lack of proximity).

    55. Burkley’s October 17, 1967 JFK Library oral history

    56. RIF#154–10002–10422

    57. Burkley’s October 17, 1967 JFK Library oral history

    58. July 5, 1978 HSCA interview of Evelyn Lincoln

    59. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p. 31.

    60. 18 H 795 ; See also see Bill Sloan, Breaking the Silence, pp. 181–5; The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 570–1; Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1993), pp. 40–41

    61. Along with General Ted Clifton, the other military aide who often rode in the front seat of the limousine between the driver and the agent in charge

    62. CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976 Interview with McHugh conducted late 1975 via phone.

    63. 2 H 129

    64. CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976 Interview with McHugh conducted late 1975 via phone

    65. May 11, 1978 interview with the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan (RIF#180–10078–10465 [see also 7 HSCA 14])

    66. Roger Craig, Two Men in Dallas video

    67. No More Silence by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 224

    68. 21 H 547, 572: DPD Stevenson Exhibit

    69. 22 H 626

    70. No More Silence, p. 337

    71. 3/23/63 Secret Service Survey Report: RIF#154-10003-10012

    72. 20 H 391; see also 4 H 171-172 (Curry); 11 HSCA 530

    73. 9/3/98 e-mail to the author

    74. Author’s interview with Bolden, September 16, 1993; Lawson: 4 H 336. SA Kinney told the HSCA on February 26, 1978 that it was “unusual for LBJ to be along”

    75. My Life Protecting Five Presidents by Rufus Youngblood, p. 199

    76. The Flying White House, pp. 214–5

    77. RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977).

    78. RIF#154–10002–10423: Secret Service Final Survey Report, Tampa, FL – underpasses controlled by police and military units; Sheriff’s office secured the roofs of major buildings in the downtown and suburban areas; agents on limo; Salinger with Kilduff; close press and photographers (including Stoughton in follow-up car); McHugh in between Secret Service agents in front seat of limo

    79. RIF#154–10002–10424: Final Survey report, San Antonio – Forty members of the military police from Fort Sam Houston, Texas: traffic control, motorcade route security, and intersection control; police helicopter utilized along route; many flanking motorcycles

    80. See also Constance Kritzberg and Larry Hancock, November Patriots (Colorado, Undercover Press, 1998), p. 423

    81. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter08.pdf

    82. 2 H 112–132 (Greer): see his entire testimony.

    83. Manchester, p. 160.

    84. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye by Dave Powers & Ken O’Donnell w/ Joe McCarthy, p. 44.

    85. Manchester, p. 290 (and 386). See also The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1992 edition) by Jim Bishop, p. 196.

    86. See also Mikita Brottman, Car Crash Culture (New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 173 (chapter authored by Pamela McElwain-Brown): USPP Motorcycle Officer Nick Prencipe spoke to Greer on the night of the murder and said that the agent was quite distressed that evening.

    87. 2 H 113

    88. See the book by O’Leary and Seymour, Triangle of Death (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2003)

    89. Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1988), p. 2

    90. Ironically, in former Chief U. E. Baughman’s book, Secret Service Chief, it is written (p. 69): “It is a cardinal principle of Presidential protection never to allow the president to stop his car in a crowd if it can possibly be avoided.”

    91. Sibert and O’Neil Report, November 22, 1963

    92. Mary Barelli Gallagher, My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy (New York: David McKay, 1969), p. 342: Secret Service Agent Marty Venker (Rush, p. 25) and Jackie biographer C. David Heymann [A Woman Called Jackie (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), p. 401] confirm that this unnamed agent was indeed Greer. See also Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58, 374.

    93. Gallagher, p. 351.

    94. Rush, p. 25.

    95. A Woman Called Jackie (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), p. 401; Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58, 374

    96. Manchester, p. 163

    97. Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58–59, 374, based on an interview Klein had with Kitty Carlisle Hart regarding Hart’s conversation with Jackie.

    98. FBI RIF#124-10012-10239; Kellerman would go on to deny ever saying such a thing: 18 H 707-708

    99. High Treason, page 127; Two Men In Dallas video by Mark Lane, 1976

    100. Evening Magazine video 11/22/88; interview with Marty Underwood 10/9/92

    101. Jim Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 296–7. See also Bishop, p. 259, and Manchester, pp. 234–5.

    102. 7 H 451. See also Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, pp. 35, 38.

    103. Marrs, p. 297. In fact, as noted by researcher David Starks in his 1994 video The Investigations, while Specter’s name appears in the hardcover version of O’Donnell’s book, it was deleted from the mass-market paperback (p. 41)!

    104. Bishop, p. 244

    105. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p. 34

    106. Manchester, pp. 165, 175; Curry, pp. 36–37; Hepburn, Farewell America, p. 229; The Flying White House, p. 215

    107. The Washington Post, October 11, 1973.

    108. Remarks of LBJ 11/23/68 – see http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29254

    109. Michael R. Beschloss, Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson’s Secret White House Tapes, 1964–1965 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), p. 703.

    110. See Bolden’s excellent 2008 book The Echo From Dealey Plaza. See also http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter17.pdf

    111. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    112. Fox News 11/12/10: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWYGPZe9YQ

    113. Hill’s November 30, 1963 report: 18 H 740–5. (See also the 2004 National Geographic documentary, Inside the U.S. Secret Service.)

    114. 2 H 141, 143

    115. Landis’s report dated November 27, 1963: 18 H 758–9; Landis’s detailed report dated November 30, 1963: 18 H 751–7; HSCA Report, pp. 89, 606 (referencing Landis’s interview, February 17, 1979 outside contact report, JFK Document 014571)

    116. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfH35258dRA (see all 5 parts)

    117. See article in The Virginian-Pilot ,June 17, 2010, by Bill Bartel: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/do-you-remember-where-you-were-he-does-jfk#rfq

    118. ARRB Final Report (1998), p. 149

    119. See also http://palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-preliminary-thoughts-on-blaines.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gB8WmbvmTw; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDhvGHrM_dQ&feature=related

    120. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqj9D38M_Ko

  • Update: Shermer Takes the Message Wide


    I hope you didn’t blink … or you would have missed it.

    On December 14, 2010, an article appeared in the Huffington Post, titled “My Day in Dealey Plaza: Why JFK Was Killed by a Lone Assassin.” It was supplied by Michael Shermer. I say “supplied” because I hesitate to use the word “written.” “Written” would imply that it was a creative and original endeavor.

    But there is nothing about this article by Shermer that is different from anything you ever saw Max Holland provide for the New York Times, and other publications, pertaining to the violent death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas.

    It pretty much begins and ends with “Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy.” (There, I just saved you some time. You don’t need to read the article anymore.) Shermer does do Holland one take better in that he doesn’t even make it out of the first paragraph before he’s already smeared those who give tours down in Dealey Plaza as being interested only in procuring your money. (As if the people who give tours at the Sixth Floor Museum are not? You can be sure that any information you get from the people in Dealey Plaza is bound to be infinitely closer to reality than anything you could ever receive on the Sixth Floor.)

    And make no mistake, Shermer wants no alternative thinking about anything. In this same article, he uses the date he was in Dealey Plaza–December 7th–to take a swipe at anyone who thinks the USA deliberately let its guard down to allow the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. He then extends that into this: “There is no more to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory than there is that President Bush helped orchestrate 9/11 or knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to unite the American public into supporting his wars of aggression in the Middle East.”

    But it is paragraph four that is my overall favorite. Second sentence in particular:

    This was certainly the case for me when I interviewed several conspiracy theorists hanging around Dealey Plaza that day. Their eye light up and they grow ever more animated (and even agitated) as their story grows in complexity about all the different people, elements, and events that almost miraculously (it would be a miracle in most re-tellings) came together to assassinate JFK. One fellow had so many people involved in the assassination that they would have needed a small sports arena to meet to plan out the day. This improbability seems to bother conspiracy theorists not one tiny bit, as they spin out their narratives, drawing you down their causal pathway that resulted in the end of Camelot.

    “Their eye light up…”?

    Was Mr. Shermer speaking with a Cyclops that day in Dealey Plaza?

    I’m surprised Shermer didn’t seize the opportunity to build up that angle. It would have added immensely to the ridiculous picture he always strives to paint about the JFK assassination, Dealey Plaza, and conspiracy theorists. (Plus, a Cyclops roaming around Dealey Plaza would have fit perfectly into Shermer’s cute little puppet show/slide presentations.)

    But of course, this is another canard. Shermer never delineates between what the actual conspiracy consisted of and what the cover up consisted of. Since the cover up was ratified by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, President Johnson, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, then yes, many people were involved with it. Since it was clear there was no downside or consequences to cooperating with a lie.

    Shermer then follows with another hackneyed canard: that Dealey Plaza is much smaller than he thought therefore, it would have been easy for Oswald to pull off his “three shots, with two direct hits in six seconds.” Shermer fails to bring up the fact the Warren Commission could not duplicate this feat using marksmen who were worlds above Oswald in shooting skill.

    I’d say that the most interesting part of the article was not Shermer’s parroting of the Warren Commission hocus-pocus–that’s par for the course in everything Shermer does. Rather, it was the posts which were included in the “comments” section underneath the story.

    The posts demonstrate beyond any doubt that there are enough people present out there who remain skeptical about the “official story.” So much so that “they” would need to go out and hire another 20 Michael Shermers if they hoped to ever change that. True, plenty are still woefully misinformed … but the vast majority can see past all the blatant bull crap, voodoo, snake oil, and smoke.

    One last word on the sorcery of Shermer. Prior to his cover up of the JFK case for Huffington Post, he did a review for them of the excellent film Inside Job. This is clearly the finest documentary on the Wall Street crash of 2007. In the entire review, Shermer could not bring himself to type the word “derivative.” Which, of course, was the main cause of the crash.

    That fact tells you all you need to know about who Shermer is and what he is about.

  • A Letter to James Corbett


    Dear James Corbett:

    This letter is in regard to your interview with John Hankey which was broadcast on December 4, 2010.

    I am a student of the JFK assassination and an interested and impartial observer.

    I just finished re-listening to the interview this morning when it became obvious that the end portion of the interview has since been edited out. Removed.

    It cuts out just as you can be heard redirecting Mr. Hankey to “the CTKA hit piece” put out by Jim DiEugenio.

    Fortunately, I held on to the original-length version!

    I don’t know which was more hilarious – Hankey saying that by 1972 he had “made himself an expert” in the JFK case, or the part where Hankey says that he “dropped out of college to get an education.” I’m going to have to remember that one in case I’m ever asked to deliver a speech to aspiring students – it’ll undoubtedly save them large on pesky tuition fees.

    Hankey’s harangue of Jim DiEugenio kicks in around the 27 minute mark. By the way, it’s pronounced “Dee U Geenio”… not “Dee U Haynio.” The name is Italian, not Spanish. How do I know this? Well, it’s because I’m familiar with the work of both DiEugenio and Hankey.

    Here is the fair and balanced way in which Hankey introduces DiEugenio:

    He’s a guy of great repute, and you hear intelligent people, who I believe are honest, and so on, referring to him with great deference, and…I think that he’s an operative. He’s certainly attacking the conclusions that I’ve drawn in a wildly unprofessional and unintelligent fashion. I mean, the guy has written extensively. He’s very, very well-versed. He’s very knowledgeable, and nothing I’ve ever seen that he’s written has been incredibly stupid…

    An operative? Wildly unprofessional? Unintelligent? Are we talking about the same Jim DiEugenio here?

    Since Hankey brought it up, kindly allow me to point out the many times Hankey strayed during this interview. Talk about being unprofessional? Wrong names. Wrong dates. Wrong numbers. Wrong memos. Wrong automobiles. And personal smears galore.

    By the way, throughout most of the interview I couldn’t help but notice the sound of a baby crying. Who was that – Hankey’s fact checker?

    Errors made by Hankey:

    • Jim DiEugenio’s book is called The Assassinations, not The Assassins.
    • Hankey mistakenly says that Hoover supervised the Cubans. Host Corbett had to correct him that he (Hankey) actually meant George H.W. Bush – not Hoover.
    • When Hankey talks about Fletcher Prouty reading the famous newspaper article in Australia, Host Corbett points out that the article in question appeared in the Christchurch Star in New Zealand – not Australia. To which Hankey reacts: “Um, OK, very good. Thank you very much. I’m sure that you’re correct.” [LOL!]
    • Hankey then says that Prouty wrote NSAM 273 (which Hankey refers to as “273”), which Hankey says outlined Kennedy’s intentions of withdrawing 1,000 troops out of Vietnam by Christmas. In fact, it was NSAM 263 which detailed Kennedy’s intentions of withdrawing 1,000 troops out of Vietnam by Christmas 1963 – and all troops by the end of 1965. NSAM 273 was a REVERSAL of NSAM 263, which ultimately resulted in the deployment of 185,000 troops into Vietnam by the end of 1965.
    • Hankey says that Oswald was seen leaving the TSBD in a green Studebaker by Roger Craig. In reality, the car was a light green Rambler.
    • On the topic of the E. Howard Hunt “deathbed” confession, he says that Hunt points the finger at, “…a guy named McCord? No, that’s Cord.” (Hunt was clearly referring to Cord Meyer.) When Host Corbett asks Hankey if he means “Frank McCord,” Hankey then says: “No…um…if you’re very, very familiar – since you asked the question, I’d be counting on you to be very familiar with the Hunt confession…” [LOL! Um, exactly who is the host here and who is the expert? It seems that in this interview the roles are reversed.]
    • During his next exchange, Hankey rambles on (I’m not sure if it was a ramble…could have been a Studebaker, I suppose) about some Republican woman (whom Hankey gladly volunteers was “a little bit drunk”), and the CFR, when he says after a long silence: “Um…I forget what question I’m answering.” Host Corbett then reminds Hankey that they were still on the topic of the Hunt confession. “Right!” exclaims Hankey – the sound of the penny finally dropping must have been loud enough to be heard clear across the next county over.
    • Hankey then quickly switches the topic to Madeleine Brown. In attempting to describe her to the host, he says, “…I wanted to call her a prostitute…she’s on the History Channel…” When Host Corbett points out that Madeleine was LBJ’s mistress, Hankey says, “so-called, yes…I don’t mean to say that she’s a liar, um, but if you listen to her story, she talks about how she got invited to all these Texas millionaires’ parties. Well, you know, why do you think they keep inviting her? (Chuckles.) Because she’s such a brilliant conversationalist?”
    • Still on the topic of Madeleine, he says: “She says she’s there with Johnson, and that Johnson comes walking out of a meeting with these guys, and… I can never remember this… the name of this individual… but she comes… she comes walking out of a meeting… at least one of whom is CFR. He’s the CFR guy who was on the Warren Commission. He’s a Rockefeller thug who was on the Warren Commission. Um, and I can nev–… I… you know, I’ve looked his name up twenty times but I can never make it stick to the tip of my tongue. Anyhow!” [LOL!]
    • Towards the end of the interview, Hankey talks about a supposed death photo of author Gary Webb. Hankey goes on to say how he showed the photo to a “bed buddy” of Webb’s, someone who was, in Hankey’s opinion, “way too close” of a friend.

    And there you have it, Mr. Corbett.

    Not only is John Hankey notorious for getting his facts wrong, and being completely unprepared (not to mention misinformed), but he also seems to take great pleasure in smearing everybody he mentions along the way.

    Perhaps you’ll keep this in mind the next time you consider asking him to appear on your show.

    Sincerely,

    Frank Cassano

  • Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (Part IV)


    Inside the ARRB, Vol. IV, by Doug Horne

    A Nearly-Entirely-Positive Review


    This is a Review of Volume IV, which includes

    Part II: Fraud in the Evidence: A Pattern of Deception (continued)
    Chapter 13: What Really Happened at the Bethesda Morgue? (and in Dealey Plaza)
    Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery.


     

    The death of a democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a
    slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

     ~ Robert Maynard Hutchins, Great Books (1954)


    My title here is a parody of my review1 of Reclaiming History (2007) by Vincent Bugliosi. Since that review was (in my opinion) rather devastating for Bugliosi, my title was intended to be sardonic. Despite this, Vince lifted a few quotes from it (out of context and without my permission) and included them with his abbreviated paperback version, Four Days in November (2008). The total page count (CD included) of his massive doorstopper was about 2786, almost exactly three times as long as the 888-page Warren Report. Horne’s book, by contrast, is shorter: 1880 pages, including the front matter (pages i-lxxiii). I had stated that Bugliosi’s book was likely to stand forever as the magnum opus of this case, though not without serious flaws. As a magnum opus, however, Horne’s five-volume set is a serious challenge to Bugliosi, but with virtually none of Bugliosi’s flaws. The current review, however, focuses (almost) solely on Volume IV, which I regard as Horne’s set piece (as that phrase is used in literature and film, but not in soccer).

    Although some men believe that women age like fine wine, in this case it is Horne himself who has aged well – he waited the better part of a decade after his experiences with the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) before beginning the serious work on his book. He does hint, though, that Bugliosi drop-kicked him (he is an Ohio State Buckeye fan) onto the playing field. Volume IV focuses on the two chief themes of the entire five-volume set: (1) the illicit surgery, before the official autopsy began, by pathologists James J. Humes and J. Thornton Boswell2 at the Bethesda morgue and (2) the Zapruder film riddles. It is likely that the success or failure of Horne’s work will rise or fall with this single volume. In this review, I shall address these two topics in sequence, critique a few puzzles, then draw some conclusions and finish with several suggestions. By way of a caveat emptor, I should confess that I initially encountered Horne at his first COPA (Committee on Political Assassinations) conference (when he interviewed with the ARRB), have intermittently met him since, and consider him a very good friend. He is also a very bright and strong-willed investigator.

    Illicit Surgery at the Bethesda Morgue

    In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid co-conspirators, Horne needs first to clarify the timeline – which he does brilliantly (see the Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK’s body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse). That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian.3 Quite astonishingly, Boyajian had retained a copy of his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of Dennis David4 who saw the light gray navy ambulance (with the bronze casket from Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was either 6:53 PM or 6:55 PM (the sources vary).5 But just about 20 minutes earlier, David had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40 PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian’s recorded time of 6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly as early as 6:45 PM.6 In my opinion, therefore, it is very difficult to disagree with this early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal – it means that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles a long table7 of witnesses to the cheap casket and the body bag, both of which were seen at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton with much of this groundbreaking work.

    Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As corroboration for this, Horne8 describes JFK’s Air Force Aide, Godfrey McHugh, as perturbed about a delay caused by a ‘luggage transfer’ between the two official planes. After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw) was missing.

    The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17 PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H. Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty) bronze casket to the morgue.9 This time is consistent with the arrival time of the bronze casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one – at 8 PM (in a light gray navy ambulance). It was delivered by the Joint Service Casket Team.10 The transfer of the body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must also have transpired after the initial X-rays (for reasons to be discussed below).11 Finally, this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could leave the morgue (Tom Robinson recalled this temporary departure12), be ‘found’ by the official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie’s unexpected decision to remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman (who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to Horne.

    Lifton had argued that body alteration had occurred somewhere before Bethesda. He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through “trajectory reversal” – i.e., turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the body – was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine surgery.13 Horne takes a different tack: he believes that the reason for assaulting the body (before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds.

    My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne’s work, I had become convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses – those at Parkland vs. those at Bethesda – had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound ‘inviolate,’ meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole.14 I still sense the horror in his voice as he recalled the tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne’s witnesses (there are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering.

    Before Horne’s work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda (although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded. Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda, he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck’s statement (to the defense team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson’s comment to the ARRB that the top of the skull was ‘badly broken’ when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was ‘what the [autopsy] doctors did’ – i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin’s bullet(s).15 These reports therefore provide more evidence that the head was explored somewhere before Bethesda; the goal was to retrieve bullet debris, but it failed – because the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at Bethesda as follows: (1) with a radically enlarged tracheotomy16 and no bullet debris in the neck (perhaps there never was any, as I have suggested elsewhere17) and (2) with the same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly, resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent from the official record today.) Those are Horne’s conclusions about H&B, but let’s look at the evidence.

    So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R’s, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.

    Reed’s report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O’Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.

    Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed’s experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24

    Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important:

    We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain.

    Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26

    Horne adds an independent argument for multiple casket entries.27 Pierre Finck told the Journal of the American Medical Association28 that he was at home when Humes telephoned him at 7:30 PM. (In his 2/1/65 report to General Blumberg he cites 8 PM.29) Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further confirmation for Finck’s overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck that X-rays had already been taken – and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken – let alone developed and viewed (a process of 30 minutes minimum) – even before the official entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM. Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with much earlier X-rays; in particular, they recall seeing Jackie enter the hospital lobby,30 well after the 6:35 PM casket entry – an entry they had personally witnessed. In summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull X-rays to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM.

    The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that’s because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed.

    Several conclusions follow from the above analysis. First, the official skull X-rays31 do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead, they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering, especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets, but instead by pathological hands. In particular, for a single, full metal-jacketed bullet (the Warren Commission’s inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has always defied credibility.32 Likewise, Boswell’s sketch (for the ARRB) on a skull33 of this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B – and does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals, uniformly describe a right occipital blowout,34 consistent with a shot from the front. Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this list.35 In photographs,36 both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses demonstrate with remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the right rear skull.

    The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of the skull.37 So why didn’t Humes extract more of these? I have previously proposed (based on their actual appearance – as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable to remove them during his illicit surgery phase.

    We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O’Neill), which quoted Humes as describing surgery to the head.38 Sibert, in the 2000s, still insisted that they had quoted Humes correctly about such surgery.39 (I also heard Sibert say this in Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law’s taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton’s tape (which I have heard), he queries Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who quotes Humes40 as asking: ‘Did they do surgery at Parkland?’ Furthermore, Humes was later told, when some skull fragments arrived at the morgue,41 that these had been ‘removed’ during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had previously been removed during the unofficial phase. James Jenkins42 observed that the brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even Finck43 bears witness to a transected spinal cord: to the defense team at the Shaw trial in 1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda. Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this, most likely Humes.

    Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this conclusion.44 However, given the absence of the throat wound from the FBI report, H&B probably learned of it only after the FBI left, i.e., after 11 PM.45 That information then led to the pathologists’ interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported by Richard Lipsey.46 Horne even speculates that an early version of the autopsy report included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data from the Zapruder film.

    Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments47 and (2) Milton Helpern (who had done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small (under similar conditions).48 Then there is the question of the magic bullet. As Horne summarizes, its provenance has been extensively investigated by Josiah Thompson49 (with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted at trial – and that alone would thoroughly devastate any Warren Commission case.50 A final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC): before political leverage was exerted, their scenario actually included a frontal throat shot!51

    The Zapruder Film Mystery

    Based on his relentless defense of the extant film, Josiah Thompson can justifiably claim the title, ‘High Priest of Z Film.’ His initial claim derives from his work for LIFE magazine in the 1960s, which led to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967).He claimed (p. 7): ‘Quite obviously, the Zapruder film contained the nearest thing to absolute truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza.’ His most recent public paper (2007)52 finalized his claim to the above title. Unfortunately for Thompson, Horne’s work has created deep fractures in his purported bedrock, and has pulverized some rockheads into finely ground sand.53 When Thompson wrote his ‘Bedrock’ article he ignored two witnesses54 who had been extensively interviewed by the ARRB (actually by Horne himself) and whose interviews were surely already known to Thompson, who is nothing if not a very bright detective. These witnesses were Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon, employees of the NPIC (a subsidiary of the CIA), who received the original (in their view) film from a Secret Service agent. The latter, in turn, had just couriered it from Rochester, New York, headquarters of Eastman Kodak. Moreover, this agent (‘Bill Smith’) specifically said that the film had been developed (sic) in Rochester. If that was true, then there must have been a second film, one not shot by Zapruder (his film, after all, had been developed in Dallas), but rather one filmed from a nearly identical site in Dealey Plaza.55

    But Horne’s next stroke is the mortal blow to the Zapruder film, one beyond even the skills of a contemporary Parsifal. Horne details Peter Janney’s encounters (including seven interviews) with Dino Brugioni,56 a founder of the NPIC. John McCone, Director of the CIA, had telephoned the NPIC director, Arthur Lundahl (Brugioni’s superior), asking him to assist the Secret Service in analyzing the original (Zapruder) film.57 Beginning late on Saturday night (November 23), Brugioni viewed an original, 8 mm film and prepared briefing boards, which were presented to McCone the next morning. Amazingly, Brugioni stated that neither Ben Hunter nor Captain Sands were at his event.

    (Brugioni did not recall ever meeting Homer McMahon; he could therefore not personally report whether or not McMahon was present at Event I on Saturday night. Of course, since Brugioni was positive that Ben Hunter was absent, and because Hunter and McMahon were linked by their recall of one another, then McMahon should not have been present at Brugioni’s event.) In a detailed analysis Horne shows convincingly that two separate events, both highly compartmentalized, occurred on successive nights. During these recent interviews, when Brugioni finally learned – after 46 years – of two unrelated events, both at NPIC, he was stunned!

    Horne assembles a magnificent table58 that contrasts these two events: the Saturday night (November 23) event with Brugioni and the Sunday night event (November 24) with Hunter and McMahon. Horne demonstrates how compartmentalized these two events were: they differed in attendees, film format, and briefing boards. Brugioni knew Ben Hunter, but did not see him at his event. Brugioni had handled an 8 mm film (Hunter and McMahon had a 16 mm film) that he considered an original; that it was 8 mm is certain because NPIC had to purchase a projector (near midnight on Saturday) from a private local store. (The NPIC did not own its own 8 mm projector.) Brugioni also viewed photographs of the briefing boards currently in the Archives, which had been authenticated by Hunter and McMahon. However, Brugioni was certain that these were not his. He was even able to recall how his differed from these. Although Hunter and McMahon’s film reportedly came from Rochester, Brugioni was not told where his had originated (most likely it was Zapruder’s original – diverted from Chicago to DC that Saturday).

    Based on these interviews, Horne draws several conclusions: (1) the CIA had an immediate and high level interest in the film; (2) the original film had been split from 16 mm to 8 mm in Dallas, just as the Dallas witnesses had agreed;59 (3) the extreme compartmentalization implies that the two films were different; (4) Brugioni viewed Zapruder’s original (8mm), whereas Hunter and McMahon viewed an altered film (in 16 mm, unslit format); (5) the alterations were done during the day on Sunday, November 24, in Rochester, New York; (6) most likely aerial imaging was used for these alterations; and (7) the three copies of the original (already in circulation60) then had to be replaced by copies of the newly altered film. The reason that Horne chooses Sunday is straightforward: LIFE‘s next issue reached the marketplace on Tuesday (November 26) and it contained images from the extant film (the one currently in the Archives). Some of these low resolution, black and white LIFE images (in Horne’s opinion – and mine, too) show signs of alteration, particularly the bizarre debris (sometimes called the ‘blob’) on JFK’s face and the disappearance of the white object in the background grass. Horne suspects that the alterations had all been completed by Sunday night, although he seems not finally wedded to this concept. In any case, Loudon Wainwright61 said that 31 frames were employed for that issue of LIFE. Although other frames might have been open to alteration after Sunday, it seems likely that these 31 frames would have restricted later changes. (There are fewer than 500 in the entire film.)

    Horne next reviews the momentous technical issues that bedevil the extant film – anomalies that really should not be present. In fact, none of these would have been predicted for an original film. Even a single one casts doubts on authenticity, but when a complete list is compiled the evidence becomes overwhelming. Aside from image content issues (which are very serious) this technical list includes the following items: (1) the location of the punched number 183 is inconsistent on both the extant film and (in photographic images) on the extant copies, (2) the punched numbers unique to each of the three copies are quite strangely located, (3) the absence of intersprocket images on the three copies was not predicted by the Jamieson lab, which had exposed them, (4) Zavada could not reproduce the septum line, (5) the double registration of the Dallas processing edge print is odd, (6) no one in Dallas recalled the bracketing (by exposure differences) that is present in the three extant copies, (7) Zavada has shown remarkable indecisiveness about when Zapruder’s film was slit from 16 mm format to 8 mm, (8) the ‘full flush left’ issue62 was not resolved, and (9) claw flare is still a puzzle. That so many purely technical issues persist would, by itself, be a wonder if the extant film indeed were authentic.63

    Horne also reviews the curious stories of Dan Rather64 and Cartha DeLoach.65 Both had been early viewers of the film and both had reported that JFK’s head had gone violently forward. To put this into perspective, the reader might ask himself this question: How many individuals have you met who, after once viewing the film, agreed with the reports of these two men? I have never met any.An actual Dealey Plaza witness, James Altgens, a photographer, also described JFK’s head as going forward.66 Horne also reminds us that early viewers of the film easily saw debris (possibly brain tissue) flying to the rear. One of these witnesses was Erwin Schwartz (Zapruder’s partner), who saw the film multiple times the very day that it was developed.67 Such backward-flying debris is nowhere seen in the extant film. Horne also notes the unrecorded turn from Houston to Elm (which both Zapruder and his secretary recalled filming) as well as the now-ancient problem of the limousine stop (first emphasized by Lifton many years ago). The discrepancies between the autopsy photographs, on the one hand, and the Zapruder film, on the other, are also reviewed. Horne offers likely explanations (of incompetent tampering) for these inconsistencies.

    In an Addendum, ‘The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,’ Horne recounts his viewing of HD scans based on a 35 mm ‘dupe negative.’ His Hollywood contact got her copy of the extant film (for $795) from a private laboratory, to which she had been referred by the Archives’ personnel themselves. (There is no other means to obtain such a copy, as the Archives do not directly reproduce copies.) Horne describes his viewing experiences with several Hollywood professionals (I have seen these, too). Quite striking were (1) the black patch over JFK’s head,68 (2) the oddly truncated corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign,69 and (3) the ‘blob’ on JFK’s face.70 The black patch, in particular, had sharp and geometric borders and was astonishingly black, especially when compared to earlier frames (before Z-313) of JFK’s head and also when compared to the natural shadow on the back and side of Connally’s head. I have since viewed the MPI transparencies (copied directly from the extant film at the Archives) at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. These images, too, are quite striking. Since they are accessible by the public, anyone should be able see them, merely by arranging an appointment with the Museum. Horne concludes this section by printing his FOIA letter to the CIA and associated letters on this subject to President Obama, Senator Webb, and DCI Panetta (the CIA response is still pending). Among other items, he requested information on (1) the highly secret CIA facility in Rochester, New York (Hawkeyeworks), (2) the optical printer(s) available there in 1963, (3) the briefing boards prepared by Brugioni (which might still exist), and (4) Brugioni’s personal history of the NPIC. Brugioni told Janney that he himself had written this history, which included a brief mention of his Zapruder film event.

    Aside from David Wrone (not discussed here, but worth reading about), the individual who fares worst as Horne’s mark is Roland Zavada, author of the now-infamous Zavada Report. Although this was purportedly a study to confirm the authenticity of the Zapruder film, no such claim is actually made in that report. After many tÍte-ý-tÍtes with Zavada, Horne concludes that Zavada has ruined his own credibility in matters of the Zapruder film.71 Horne especially, and appropriately, critiques him for his public dithering on multiple serious issues, all of which are well documented. I myself have accused him of frequently employing ex post facto logic.72 That may be appropriate in the courtroom but is wholly out of place in a scientific investigation. Horne specifically faults him for these items: (1) the printing aperture issue, (2) the bracketing issue, (3) the edge printing light issue, and (4) the inconsistent locations of the punched numbers on the copy films. I concur with all of these – and have previously so stated in print.

    Critiques

    It is impossible to write any comprehensive treatise about the JFK case and expect to go unscathed (as I well know). The data are simply too complex and, as Horne repeatedly emphasizes, they are too often corrupted. The sole recourse then for the investigator is simply to speculate, based on those data he considers most reliable. Horne clearly recognizes his vulnerability here. Horne and I differ, as he knows, on several issues, the most obvious being the role of Robert Knudsen in the autopsy.73

    Horne concludes that none (or at least very few) of the autopsy photographs derive from the official photographer, John Stringer. Instead he nominates Knudsen as the source of the extant autopsy photographs. Knudsen was the social photographer for the White House and he told his family that he had been busy that night filming the autopsy (he was not home for three nights in a row). The embarrassing fact, of course, is that no one saw him there. Not even the Secret Service agents mention him, though they surely recognized one another from their White House duties.74 Horne regards the autopsy photographs as authentic (i.e., not photographically altered), chiefly based on his viewing of high resolution images at Eastman Kodak, in Rochester, while he served on the ARRB. (Nonetheless, he maintains that they are highly misleading.) On the other hand, I regard several images (certainly not all of them) as photographically altered, especially the posterior head images.75 An entire essay could be spent developing these divergent arguments (of photo-alteration vs. no alteration), but I shall not do so here. My viewing of the posterior scalp, with a large format stereo viewer (on multiple occasions and while sampling all imaginable photographic variations of the two pertinent images), repeatedly showed that the back of the head, precisely at the occipital blowout, did not yield a 3D image. This could only occur if the occipital area was precisely identical on the two photographs in the stereo viewer; such a resulting 2D image is exactly what would be expected if the same photographic patch (a soft matte insertion) had been used for each member of the pair. (Ordinarily the two images should have derived from slightly different perspectives.) Otherwise, the expected 3D images were readily obtained, both on other portions of these same suspect photographs and also on all other photographs that I examined. This impression of an anomalous area, precisely where the witnesses disagreed with the photographs – and only there – was inescapably striking to me. Unfortunately, Horne did not perform such stereo viewing, as he acknowledges with some regret.

    In addition, other serious problems plague Knudsen’s role as assigned to him by Horne. Foremost is his statement to his own son: he rode in the limousine with the bronze casket.76 Now we know that the bronze casket arrived at the front of the hospital by 6:55 PM and that it arrived at the morgue by 7:17 PM. That is a very tight timeline for Knudsen, if he was at the morgue at all. In view of that, it does seem unlikely that he took very early photographs of the right upper forehead. By then (according the timeline offered by Tom Robinson, and also probably by Ed Reed), H&B had already committed at least some of their nefarious manipulations. Some skull X-rays may even have been taken by 7:17 PM. If that is true, how then could Knudsen have photographed the head before these alterations – as Horne claims he did? Perhaps he got there much earlier (and did not ride with the bronze casket), but no evidence exists for this. And Stringer himself clearly implies that photography began only after 8 PM. If both Stringer and Riebe are correct about this timeline, then what equipment did Knudsen use? And who set it up for him? That task would typically fall to an assistant, such as Riebe, but Ed Reed tells us that he saw no photographic equipment when he took the initial X-rays.77 And, since Knudsen was a total novice at an autopsy, how did he know to take two photographs from a similar perspective, in order to create stereo pairs?

    Here is another major challenge to Horne’s scenario: he proposes that Knudsen took photographs after reconstruction by the morticians, when both Riebe and Stringer were absent from the morgue. Horne bases this on Riebe’s recollection78 that they had both left by then. Unfortunately, that is not what Stringer recalled. In fact, he clearly stated that he remained until reconstruction had been completed and that he did not get home until about 4 AM.79 Who would best remember Stringer’s presence during that time: Riebe or Stringer? Therefore, if Stringer stayed around, Knudsen gets left out. There is simply no need for two photographers. Furthermore, Stringer never saw Knudsen.80

    The record shows Knudsen making many trips to develop the autopsy photographs. And, of all places, they went to the highly secret Anacostia facility. (Ordinarily, Stringer would have developed his own photographs; furthermore, he would never have used Anacostia.) That so many trips were required, over the next several weeks,81 is suspicious in itself. After all, there are only nine autopsy views and only 52 catalogued photographs.82 So why were so many trips necessary?

    My conclusions about Knudsen, only briefly supported here, disagree with Horne’s. I instead conclude that Knudsen indeed worked with the autopsy photographs (in the darkroom, but not in the morgue), perhaps by improving them cosmetically for the Kennedy family – or by supervising someone else who did this. I suspect he was an unwitting conspirator, being played by his superiors. Furthermore, if the Oswald evidence photographs were doctored, if Dealey Plaza photographs were touched up, if the skull X-rays were altered (in the darkroom), if the Zapruder film was revised, then why would the autopsy photographs remain pristine? After all, it is much, much easier to alter a photograph than to correctly improvise a misleading autopsy scene in the morgue (especially a scene that was often described by attendees as a madhouse). Furthermore, time limits do not apply in the darkroom, where one can leisurely keep improving the image until success is achieved.

    I also disagree with Horne about the semicircular defect (with apparent beveling), as seen in F8.83 This mysterious photo, which I consider to be the back of the head, was described as precisely that during the initial ‘military review’ by the autopsy personnel on November 1, 1966. In addition, Paul O’Connor (autopsy technician) clearly confirmed this.84 Horne concludes that this beveled defect represents an important exit site. Because it looks like an exit, I agree with Horne that the pathologists should have discussed it. In fact, they do not – and that is suspicious. However, Roger McCarthy,85 after his own experiments, concluded that such beveled defects can occur independently of exiting bullets or bullet fragments. Furthermore, this site does not fit with any other metal debris in the skull X-rays – certainly not the fragment trail across the top of the skull nor the two fragments removed by H&B – nor does it match the right occipital blowout. To finally bury this proposal, no witness at either Parkland or Bethesda observed a scalp wound that corresponded to this semicircular beveled defect, so it may simply be a red herring.

    How many shots struck JFK’s head? Horne argues for three,86 which will perplex many a reader. Even critics of the Warren Commission typically argue for only two head shots at most. (The Warren Commission’s scenario was simple: a single shot entered at the rear, near the external occipital protuberance (EOP).)87 Although I agree with that shot, a second shot likely entered high on the right forehead, very near the hairline.) I confess that Horne has forced me to think again about a third shot. Although I had previously been inclined to ascribe the supposed left temple entry to observer error (confusing left for right – or perhaps just seeing a blood clot88), I am now more inclined to believe in such an entry. Horne cites the Parkland physicians – Marion Jenkins, Robert McClelland, Ronald Jones, and Lito Puerto (aka Porto)89 – who clearly reported a small wound in the left temple. Others include Dr. Adolph Giesecke,90 Dr. David Stewart,91 Father Oscar Huber,92 photographers Altgens93 and Similas94 and, more recently, Hugh Huggins (aka Hugh Howell),95 who was RFK’s emissary to the autopsy.

    Although I was reluctant to visualize Greer with a pistol during the shooting, Secret Service agents did pull their pistols during the tussle over JFK’s body in the ER. It is even possible that Greer fired, though I can’t imagine what his target was. But it is most unlikely that he deliberately fired at JFK. That would have been far too risky – multiple witnesses would have fingered him, yet no one has done so. Furthermore, no photograph shows him doing this (although it is theoretically possible that such photographs have been culled or altered). Besides, although he may have disliked JFK, we have no evidence that he was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

    In the end, though, I must admit that evidence of a third shot to the head persists. Perhaps the major clue is the right occipital blowout. The right forehead shot96 likely produced the debris across the top of the skull X-rays (neither the Warren Commission’s scenario nor the HSCA’s scenario match that trail), but that fragment trail does not fit (at all) with a right occipital blowout. Furthermore, if the bullet that caused the visible fragment trail had been mercury filled (as I suggested), then perhaps much of the mercury remained inside the skull. So what produced the occipital blowout? The Warren Commission shot (from the rear) surely could not do that. But a shot from the left front could be just right. What is odd, though, is that no witness at Bethesda, absolutely no one, ever reported such an entrance hole.97

    Then there is the Clarence Israel story, related by Janie Taylor, a biologist at NIH, across the street from the Bethesda Hospital.98 Israel (now deceased), an orderly in the morgue that night, saw a doctor working at a ‘hurried’ pace to mutilate three bullet punctures to the head area. Like Jeremy Gunn, I don’t know what to do with this tale, although it is striking that three head wounds are cited.

    Diana Bowron, a Parkland nurse,99 told Livingstone that less than 50% of the right brain remained (the right rear quadrant was most effected) and about a quarter of the left hemisphere was also missing. I am not aware of any other Parkland comments about the left hemisphere, and there is very little clear-cut information from Bethesda either. But if Bowron is correct, then her report constitutes powerful evidence for a left frontal shot. Of course, her report also flatly contradicts the official brain photographs, which show no missing left brain.100 The optical density data also support Bowron; they show that only 60-65% of the left brain was present, as measured on the AP skull at the National Archives.101 Of course, in view of Horne’s conclusions, some of this missing brain might have been due to H&B. But, even if H&B had removed this, that alone would be suspicious – i.e., they would have had no reason to excise left brain tissue at all unless trauma had occurred there.

    To all of this, Horne adds the support of Dr. Charles Wilbur, who carefully reviewed the microscopic pathology report of the left brain sample.102 This showed ‘extensive disruption associated with hemorrhage.’ Wilbur concluded: ‘These observations rekindle my interest in the observations made in Dallas on the ER table (by several medical personnel) Ö that there was an entry hole in the left temporal region, in front of the ear and at the hairline.’ In conclusion, I would say that the left temple wound seems more likely than ever, especially with support from the optical density data.

    It might have been expected the brain photographs would have resolved this mystery; unfortunately, they are not of JFK’s brain. Horne was the first to deduce, from multiple lines of disparate data (see his detailed table),103 that a surrogate brain had been introduced at a second brain examination. Even the (sole) autopsy photographer of the brain, John Stringer, stated in no uncertain terms that these were not his photographs. One reason was that they were on the wrong brand of film.104 My own optical density data (taken directly from the extant skull X-rays at the National Archives)105 are totally inconsistent with the brain photographs (which I have observed at the National Archives with Cyril Wecht). Insofar as the amount of residual brain goes, one can accept either the X-ray data as authentic or the brain photographs as authentic, but not both. They are inconsistent with one another – in fact, wildly inconsistent. To date, no Warren Commission supporter has come to terms with this intractable paradox. It should also be emphasized that the optical density data actually preceded Horne’s proposal, but these data are entirely consistent with his two-brain proposal.

    I also object to Horne’s proposal that puncture wounds106 were deliberately created in the scalp that night.107 Oddly, he does not identify the perpetrator, or even who issued the order. Of course, none of that is in the official record. Horne proposes that the high posterior ‘red spot’ (selected by the HSCA as the official entry site – albeit persistently denied by the pathologists) was deliberately created that night. How the red color was achieved he does not say. And why that particular site was selected is also mysterious – did it fit better with the ‘sniper’s nest’ than did the EOP site? If so, who in the morgue would have known that so early in the game? But what madness it would be to create another wound! After all, H&B had already identified a lower (EOP) entry site; therefore this higher one would immediately imply two shots to the head – exactly what no one wanted that night. But Horne does not stop there; he also believes that the lower ‘white spot’ (very near the posterior hairline) was deliberately man-made.108 We might well ask why he takes these risks. But that question has a simple answer: because he refuses to consider photographic alteration, he has no choice. Think about this: that red spot nearly correlates spatially with the 6.5 mm object on the skull X-ray – as it should since both were fakes. However, what breathtaking serendipity such a match was for subsequent government panels – they had their entry site!109 But because Horne has boxed himself in (no photo-alteration allowed) his only option is to say that the red spot really was present that night. Unless photographic doctoring is permitted, that red spot could not abruptly appear later. But no one at the autopsy saw this red spot (let alone its creation) – and the pathologists forever adamantly refused to recognize it (despite Horne’s insinuation that they themselves had created it). All of this, taken together, is quite damning evidence in favor of (at least some) photographic alteration.110

    Horne suggests that the original Zapruder film may have been shot at 48 frames per second, an option that was available on that camera:

    Removing the Car Stop and the Exit Debris From the Film Would Have Been Simple if Zapruder Had Actually Filmed the Motorcade at ëSlow Motion,’ or at 48 Frames Per Second, Instead of at the Normal ëRun’ Setting of 16 Frames Per Second.111

    Horne suggests that simple frame excision could then have eliminated much of the evidence of conspiracy. But this cannot work, as Costella has explained: the ghost images (in the intersprocket area) make this impossible.112 When Zapruder’s camera exposed one frame (call it number 10), the gate (the metal frame that actually admits light to the film) simultaneously exposed (in the intersprocket area) a modest portion of each neighboring frame (call these 9 and 11).113 When Costella examined the film he learned that these ghost images are, in fact, consistent with the central frame in each case – i.e., 10 is always adjacent to 9 and 11 (and this works for any three adjacent frames). In a sense then, each adjacent ghost image ‘belongs’ to its primary frame – and not to any other frame. On the other hand, if frame excision had occurred, each ghost image would become separated from its simultaneously exposed primary frame; i.e., such excision would have led to an adjacent ghost image exposed at a different time from the primary frame. For example, for excision of every other frame, 10 would end up next to 8 and 12; for excision of two of every three frames, 10 would end up next to 7 and 13. In either case, these ghost images would not match the frames next to them. And Costella emphasizes that enough information (e.g., motion blur) exists in these ghost images to permit such a deduction. The bottom line is that such inconsistencies are not found in the extant film. Furthermore, there is no escape from this problem, i.e., it is not possible simply to erase a ghost image from the intersprocket area – once there, it is always there. Partly based on this very powerful argument, Costella has argued that the extant film must be a fabrication, i.e., a re-creation using parts of multiple films (and probably only a rather modest portion of Zapruder’s film at most). At least one of these films must have been shot during the motorcade, but others could have been shot before or after, even some days before or after. These then had to be stitched together to compose the extant film. Even differences of perspective (as would be expected for films shot from slightly different sites) could be overcome by selecting only pertinent parts of frames.

    Costella concludes that the Stemmons freeway sign is one example of such a cut and paste job. By analyzing the effects of pincushion distortion114 he concludes that the sign was placed into the film after the fact, i.e., it looks constant in all frames. On the other hand, if it had been shot from Zapruder’s camera, it should have experienced pincushion distortion: i.e., the sign would successively change its appearance from one frame to the next. Furthermore, after several frames, these changes would accumulate to become even more obvious. But the bottom line is that the Stemmons sign does not show such pincushion effects, which means that it was placed after the fact by the film forgers. This situation is closely analogous to the fake hairpiece on the back of JFK’s head, where the image looks 2D rather than 3D via the stereo viewer. In both cases, the same fake image was placed (into multiple photographs – or into multiple frames) in a manner that violates the basic rules of optics.

    Based on these arguments, Costella concludes that it would have been impossible to alter the film without discarding essentially all of the intersprocket areas and starting all over. In that case, he argues, the total time for (final) fabrication would have taken much longer than several days. Although Horne does not require completion of a final film (i.e., the extant film) by Sunday night (November 24) he does suggest that the Jamieson copies were switched quite promptly, likely within several days. Such a prompt (yet final) switch implies a timeline that sharply contrasts with Costella’s more leisurely pace. Even David Healy (a professional video producer with decades of experience) emphasized in his 2003 Duluth lecture that even if an altered film had been viewed on Sunday night, November 24, it need not have been the final product (i.e., the extant film), but merely an interim film.115 Horne ultimately agrees that alterations might have continued for ‘several weeks’ afterwards, especially if a traveling matte had been employed.116

    Costella also refers to the possibility that the proposed second film of the motorcade (by an unknown photographer – or photographers) might have been shot in 16 mm format. If so, that would have made forgery ever so much easier, particularly since the contemporaneous optical printers were not designed for 8 mm. It might also have made the subsequent first generation copies (the extant ones, which are probably not the Jamieson copies) appear more authentic after fabrication.

    Costella goes on to wonder whether the splices in the film (e.g., between Z-208 and Z-212) were unavoidable during forgery for a simple reason: they may have contained telltale ghost images of bystanders who appeared under the left edge of the Stemmons sign.117 A splice is also present at Z-155 to Z-157. Curiously, this is close to frames where Michael Stroscio, a physicist, identified a possible shot at Z-152 to Z-153.118

    There is a final, simple argument against a 48 fps scenario for Zapruder. If 48 fps had been used, then when the film was shown that weekend, all of the action would have appeared in slow motion – as if the actors were subject to the lesser gravity of the moon. However, no one reported such an odd effect, even though someone surely should have.

    My final paragraph in this section is not really a criticism of Horne at all. It merely reflects an unblinking reality: no one (not even Bugliosi119) can address everything important in this case. I refer here to the police dictabelt and the acoustics data.120 Horne implies that the acoustics data support conspiracy – based on the number of audible shots and also on timing problems, i.e., two shots are only 1.66 seconds apart, an interval much too short for the Mannlicher-Carcano. However, he does not cite the work of Don Thomas,121 which reinvigorated this subject, nor does he mention the fallout from that work. The discussion continues; the interested reader may begin with Wikipedia for current references.122

    Conclusions

    I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. Given the circumstances of its creation (mostly on weekends, within a cumulative time span of perhaps two years) it is nothing short of phenomenal. Contrast Horne’s effort with Bugliosi’s, which extended over several decades, and which may have included writing assistants and editors. Bugliosi also did not have to self-publish. The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi.

    If H&B indeed played alterationists with the skull and brain (as I now accept), then Horne has initiated a paradigm shift in our understanding of the cover-up. But, as Horne acknowledges, this does not necessarily convert H&B into villains. After all, they may well have considered themselves to be heroic patriots, who single-handedly aborted World War III,123 depending on exactly what their military superiors124 had told them.

    Josiah Thompson has proclaimed that the Zapruder debate has been a gigantic waste of time, because it is ‘junk science’ that has produced nothing.125 Like Einstein’s opinion of quantum mechanics,126 Thompson’s mind is stuck in the past. In fact, Horne has presented revolutionary new data about the chain of possession. In view of Thompson’s now-shaky bedrock, many will find this new information very convincing indeed – especially younger researchers new to the case, whose minds are still open. I have previously summarized traditional historical (and scientific) views that were later overturned,127 so no one should be surprised at this dÈnouement. Without nascent heretics, our world would soon become more impoverished. In retrospect, it was best not to offer obeisance to Roland Zavada (as the inerrant pope of the film), as Thompson implied we should do.128 The two-event sequence at NPIC has all the hallmarks of a covert operation – but for 46 years not even Brugioni knew what had transpired – and he wrote the history of the NPIC!Some of us did not need more evidence, but others did. These fence-sitters may now take their own time to decide. Some may even wish to make a pilgrimage to view the MPI transparencies in Dallas. The real point, though, as Horne states, is that the alteration of the film is, in itself, major evidence of a government cover-up. I could not agree more.

    What remains controversial for many though is the timeline for alteration. Horne favors a very short timeline, while Costella prefers a distinctly longer one. The early appearance in LIFE of altered frames (e.g., the ‘blob’ on JFK’s face and the disappearance of the white object in the background grass) indicate that some frames had been altered before Sunday night, November 24. In addition, the Hunter/McMahon briefing boards show the extremely black patch over JFK’s occiput, as well as the blob. It is possible, though not certain, that incriminating flying debris was also removed by Sunday night. The Stemmons sign and the lamppost (both added after the fact, according to Costella) also appear in LIFE‘s first JFK issue, in low-resolution black and white photographs. Now consider this: McMahon concluded that JFK was hit by 6-8 shots, fired from at least three directions. Evidence for these shots is absent from the extant film, so he must have seen a different film (though probably not the original). If McMahon’s observations were correct, then he must have seen a partly altered film. That would leave time for Costella’s more leisurely scenario.

    The chief argument for a short timeline is the need to dispose promptly of the Jamieson (first-day) copies; the problem, of course, is that the longer these persisted the longer the original images might be copied – or recalled – by others. Horne notes that the FBI returned its Jamieson copy to the Secret Service by Tuesday, November 26.129 However, we do not know the disposition of any other FBI copies, i.e., later generation copies made from the Jamieson copies (that the FBI might have already made by then).130 So perhaps this cover-up was a two-step process: (1) retrieve quickly all possible copies (including Jamieson copies and all those made from Jamieson’s)131 and (2) sometime later (e.g., within one or two months) replace those earlier ones by copies subsequently made from the extant film. Perhaps the FBI was even given some credible excuse for the delay in replacement (e.g., an improved quality copy was pending); in any case, it is likely that J. Edgar Hoover would have cooperated with any reasonable suggestion to abet the cover-up. But LIFE, too, had a copy. However, after their early assassination coverage, they had no need for the film, as a movie film. Given the role of C. D. Jackson (LIFE‘s publisher), first in the very expensive purchase of the film, and then in his sequestering of the film (with no profit accruing to LIFE), it is likely (especially in view of his longtime intelligence connections)132 that he also would have agreed to such a delayed replacement.

    But there is still the matter of the three black and white copies of the extant film, discovered in the year 2000 by the Sixth Floor Museum among materials sold to Zapruder in 1975 by Time, Inc.133 Their format is 16 mm, unslit, with the motorcade on one side and Zapruder home scenes on the other (adjacent) side. These include markings on the film that identify specific frames actually printed in LIFE.134 An irresistible deduction from these markings, of course, is that the extant film had already been completed by that early date. In fact, however, all that is certain is that specific frames (those made public) must have been finalized by that date. On the other hand, if Costella’s more leisurely timeframe is adopted, that would imply that these black and white copies were only later placed into the LIFE collection – marked up appropriately after the fact – so as to give the impression that the markings (and the extant film, too) dated to November. Although this scenario may be true, no eyewitness to date has corroborated it.

    Suggestions

    The HD scans (cited above) of selected Zapruder frames should be scanned with an optical densitometer. If possible, multiple wavelengths (colors) should be employed. These scans should then be compared to controls, e.g., JFK’s head before Z-313 and Connally’s head (at most any time). This might quantify the magnitude of photo-alteration, thus making the conclusions more scientific. Further studies may be forthcoming from the Hollywood nexus. New films shot via a camera like Zapruder’s might yet provide further insights. Of course, if extant films (i.e., original ones, not altered ones) from Zapruder’s actual camera can still be located that would be even better. As Horne suggests, at the National Archives two autopsy photographs of the posterior scalp (from a matched pair) should be overlaid on a view box. If the images of the suspect area perfectly align, that would constitute powerful evidence of photo-alteration. Control areas should also be extensively compared, just to see what non-identical (but stereo-matched) pairs look like. Surprisingly, no one has done this.

    There are three X-ray films of the bone fragments,135 which seems a bit excessive. Is it possible that these extra films were taken to replace those X-rays that had been discarded – in order that the total number of X-ray films remained fixed at 14? Is it even possible that these three films are identical to one another? If so, that would be even more suspicious. To check on this (for the first time – no one has done this), Horne suggests that the films simply be overlaid to see if they match precisely.

    I have never looked for the head brace on the X-rays nor, apparently, has anyone else. Since the autopsy personnel did not recognize this, it would be useful to look for this on the X-ray films. (Custer told the ARRB that he had used a blanket behind the head, but Custer’s memory has not always been reliable.) In view of Horne’s proposal that Knudsen took autopsy photographs with the head brace (apparently while no autopsy personnel were present – because no one recalls this), the presence or absence of such a brace on the X-rays might shed further light on Horne’s proposed timeline for Knudsen (if he was involved at all).

    The optical density data from the X-rays should be confirmed. The National Archives have their own densitometer(s); perhaps they would even assist with this. Actually the data need not be too extensive – even a few select data points inside the 6.5 mm object and inside the ‘white patches’136 could be highly confirmatory.

    My observation at the National Archives of intact emulsion (where there should be none) over the T-shaped inscription on a lateral skull X-ray137 provided prima facie evidence that this X-ray must be a copy. That clearly means that (1) the original is missing and (2) the door lies open to alteration (during copying). Surprisingly, no one has yet attempted to confirm my observation (of the paradoxically missing emulsion), despite the fact that Chad Zimmerman and Larry Sturdivan had that opportunity after my observation became public.138 Furthermore, Bugliosi should be a bit red-faced that he did not accompany them at that critical moment. Even he could have made that observation.

    Perhaps some other creative minds can think further about three head shots. My fear, though, is that this impasse may never be resolved due to insufficient data. Given the destruction inflicted on the skull by H&B (and perhaps by their predecessors), I am not even certain that a second autopsy would help to resolve that question.

    Addendum: The 6.5 mm Mystery on the AP Skull X-ray

    Although Horne’s discussion of the suspicious 6.5 mm object on the AP X-ray is in Volume II, I could not resist a few comments about it here.139 To date no one else has explained this object, not even the three experts interviewed by the ARRB.140 Furthermore, each one of the three autopsy pathologists (interviewed separately and under oath) denied either seeing or removing this thing at the autopsy.141 Even Larry Sturdivan142 admits that it cannot be a bullet fragment (this admission, almost by itself, destroys the case against the lone gunman), but then after his visit to the National Archives he had to confess that it remained as mysterious as ever. He did, however, offer one half-hearted proposal that he did not really endorse, namely that the fragment had been present on the AP X-ray, but had fallen off before the lateral was taken. (He necessarily assumed that the AP had been taken first.) But this does not explain an awkward fact: the lateral X-ray143 still shows a small metal fragment at precisely the expected site! Furthermore, this proposal disagrees with Reed’s sequence of X-rays: Reed said he took the lateral film first.144 In fact, the only viable explanation for this bizarre 6.5 mm object is photographic addition in the dark room.145 Horne recounts my own adventures with this fantastic forgery in some detail. Given that he began his odyssey as a layman in medicine and radiology, Horne offers a splendid summary of this entire subject.146

     

    Appendix: Three Casket Entries

    Time (PM) Casket Type Witnesses Remarks
        Paul O’Connor  
    6:35 Shipping Roger Boyajian Black hearse
      casket Dennis David Body bag
        Donald Rebentisch  
        Floyd Riebe  

    Note: this first entry was documented by Boyajian and corroborated by the above witnesses.147

    7:17 Bronze viewing Jim Sibert Light gray navy
      casket Frank O’Neill ambulance 
      (from Parkland) Roy Kellerman Empty casket
        William Greer  

    Note: this second entry was documented in the report of Sibert and O’Neill.148

    8:00 Bronze viewing Joint Service Casket Team Light gray navy
      casket Godfrey McHugh ambulance 
          Body inside, wrapped
    in sheets – no body bag

    Note: this third entry was supervised by Lt. Samuel Bird from Fort Myer.149


    NOTES

    1 Google: ‘A Not-Entirely-Positive Review.’ Also see Jim DiEugenio’s very extensive review of Bugliosi’s book, Reclaiming Parkland.

    2 Visit their photographs at Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (2009), Volume I at Figures 77-80.

    3 Ibid. at Figure 68 and at xxxiii. A more detailed account is in Horne’s Appendix 38; see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1932.

    4 David Lifton, Best Evidence (1988), at 569-588.

    5 For example, see Clint Hill’s statement at http://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html:
    ‘The motorcade arrived Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m.’
    Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM.

    6 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002.

    7 Ibid. at 989-992.

    8 Horne cites William Manchester, Death of a President (1967).

    9 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1006.

    10 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 70.

    11 The entire X-ray collection is listed in Ibid. at Figure 58.

    12 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1007.

    13 In retrospect, Lifton had been grievously misled by the HSCA’s false statements, namely that the autopsy photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only discovered after the movie, JFK, triggered the release of multiple, sequestered witness statements that disagreed with the photographs.

    14 James Fetzer, editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), at 433 and 436.

    15 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1164.

    16 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 60.

    17 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 258-259.

    18 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery.

    19 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437.

    20 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250.

    21 Ibid. at 242.

    22 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

    23 Lifton (1988), supra, at 492 and 579.

    24 Harry Livingstone actually prints a photograph of four fragments in High Treason (1998), at 562. Their provenance, however, seems uncertain.

    25 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354.

    26 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043.

    27 Ibid. at 1000.

    28 Breo, D.L., ‘JFK’s death, Part II – Dr. Finck speaks out, ëtwo bullets, from the rear,’ ‘ JAMA 268:1749 (1992).

    29 http://www.jfk-assassination.net/weberman/finck1.htm. Or see Horne’s Appendix 29 or 7 HSCA 101, 122, 135, 191. The list of appendices is in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link.

    30 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

    31 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

    32 See Boswell’s sketch from the autopsy: Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 11.

    33 Ibid. at Figures 12-15.

    34 For two eyewitness sketches see Ibid. at Figures 21 & 30. Also see the sketch approved by Parkland physician, Robert McClelland: Ibid. at Figure 81.

    35 Michael Kurtz includes George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenney, David Osborne, and John Stover; see The Assassination Debates (2006), at 39 and 126.

    36 Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), at 86-88.

    37 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

    38 Lifton, supra, at 295-307.

    39 William Law, In the Eye of History (2005), at 143-288.

    40 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036 and 1038.

    41 See their X-rays in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 39.

    42 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1037.

    43 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036-1037.

    44 Ebersole also confirmed a call to Dallas during our telephone conversations (see my footnote 14). He estimated the time as about 10:30 PM (Ibid. at 999). What struck me, though, is the reason why he recalled this event so clearly: he said that after they learned about the throat wound, they stopped searching for bullet debris on the X-rays (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 437). Quite interestingly, Stringer also seemed to recall such a telephone call (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1011; Volume I at 166; or HSCA interview with John Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer’s estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole’s estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday night; see Harry Livingstone, High Treason II (1992), at 186.

    45 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999. Oddly enough, Malcolm Perry, before the Warren Commission, initially recalled his conversation with Humes as Friday night; see Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III at 380 or http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm:
    Mr. SPECTER – Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
    Dr. PERRY – Yes, sir; I did.
    Mr. SPECTER – When did that conversation occur?
    Dr. PERRY – My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn’t recall exactly when.

    46 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 83.

    47 Olivier, A.G., Dziemian, A.J., ‘Wound Ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition. US Army Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report CRDLR 3264.’ March 1965. Also see Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1083 and Kurtz, supra, at 35.

    48 Kurtz, supra, at 35. Also see Marshall Houts, Where Death Delights; the Story of Dr. Milton Helpern and Forensic Medicine (1967).

    49 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1089-1095. Also see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), at 176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after its initial appearance. Also see http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm.

    50 David Wrone has made a similar argument for the chain of possession of the Zapruder film; see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 265. Wrone claims that a good lawyer could have kept the film out of the courtroom (although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see below), that argument today is stronger than ever.

    51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: “Öthe 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed—towards the sniper’s nest—just before he clutches it.”

    53 Ironically, a Captain (Pierre) Sands attended the Hunter-McMahon event (see below). The layman should understand that ‘rockhead’ is neither an epithet nor a pejorative for certain types of music lovers. It is merely a geological formation.

    54 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1226-1227.

    55 John Costella, an Australian Ph.D. physicist with expertise in optics, has offered very compelling physical arguments as to why more than just an original Zapruder film was absolutely necessary to fabricate the extant film. See James Fetzer, editor, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), at 145-238. One researcher has advised me that he has made some progress, but identifying the pertinent photographer(s) remains an open question.

    56 Dino Brugioni, Photofakery: the History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (1999). His recollections of the Cuban missile crisis are documented at 109-110.

    57 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1220-1243.

    58 Ibid. at 1236.

    59 This contradicts Roland Zavada’s final verdict on this question, although his initial conclusion had been precisely the opposite; see below for more on Zavada.

    60 It is possible that some copies of these copies (sic) escaped the dragnet. Dan Rather, for example (The Camera Never Blinks (1977), at 127), claims that security for the film was extremely poor while he was at CBS. Multiple individuals have reported viewing a very different Zapruder film, actually one more consistent with the eyewitnesses (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 354). Millicent Cranor described to me a film that she saw in 1992 at NBC; she added that John Lattimer must have seen a similar film (Resident and Staff Physician, May 1972, at 60). The LIFE issue of October 2, 1964, had six different versions according to Paul Hoch and Vincent Salandria (Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, Murder from Within (1974), at 143). In one version Z-323 had a caption that described JFK’s head as ‘snapping to one side’ (also see my footnote 67); another version replaced this frame with Z-313 and a caption describing JFK’s head as going forward.

    61 Horne, supra, Volume IVat 1346. Wainwright was a LIFE employee who published The Great American Magazine – An Inside Story of LIFE (1986).This includes a (second-hand) account of these images in LIFE (November 29, 1963). He states that 31 enlargements were used in creating a sequential layout for that issue.

    62 I recently viewed an original Zavada report; there is indeed one image of the red truck (Zavada Report (1998) at 1285) that does extend very near the left edge, just as Horne states. However, Horne’s point is that the images in the extant Zapruder film nearly always extend fully left, whereas Zavada’s test images only rarely show this phenomenon. Horne also cites the Janowitz/Myers film (Horne, supra, Volume IVat 1290), shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder’s. As he viewed it on a DVD it seemed to show ‘full flush left,’ but Horne noted that he personally could not authenticate this film and would really prefer to see a film actually shot through Zapruder’s camera. For more on this J/M film see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15326.

    63 Many of these points had previously been made, as Horne acknowledges, both by Harry Livingstone and by me, although our work was admittedly based on Horne’s initial efforts. Horne emphasizes that he only read Livingstone’s book after he had done his own research. That the two of them reached so many common conclusions (they did indeed do so) is taken by Horne as (at least partial) verification of his own work. See Fetzer (1998), supra, and Fetzer (2000), supra, and also Harry Livingstone, The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film (2004).

    64 Rather, supra, at 127.

    65 Noel Twyman and I independently discovered DeLoach’s report in his autobiography, Hoover’s FBI: The Inside Story by Hoover’s Trusted Lieutenant (1995), at 139. DeLoach does not comment on his obvious disagreement with the extant Zapruder film.

    66 Fetzer (2003), supra, at 200.

    67 Also see a review by Richard J. DellaRosa at http://www.jfkresearch.com/book_review.html: ‘When interviewed in the 1990s, Zapruder’s business partner, Erwin Schwartz, said that he vividly recalled watching the film and remembered seeing JFK’s head suddenly ëwhip around to the left’ and saw an explosion of blood and brains from his head and that it had been blown out ëto the left rear.’ ‘ Also see my footnote 60.

    68 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 87-88.

    69 Ibid. at Figures 85-86.

    70 Ibid. atFigures 89-90.

    71 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1281.

    72 See the Preface (by me – but amputated by Harry) to Harry Livingstone, The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film (2004).

    74 Ibid. at 251.

    75 Ibid. at Figure 65 (autopsy photographs 43 & 44).

    76 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1003 (footnote 3).

    77Horne, supra, Volume II at 435. Gunn: Did you, at any point, see photographers in the morgue?
    Reed: Yes, I did. But they didn’t have their equipment. There was no equipment at that time with them.

    78Horne, supra, Volume I at 237.

    79 Ibid. at 165 and 167. Of course, both men could be right. Stringer might have been only temporarily absent – shortly after Riebe left. Stringer also added a major observation: no photographs were taken either during or after the embalming. Although Godfrey McHugh reported the opposite, I would be inclined in this case to believe the photographer.

    80 Ibid. at 250. Also recall that Knudsen claimed to be the sole autopsy photographer; by implication, therefore, he did not see Stringer.

    81 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 275.

    82 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 57.

    83 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1027. Also seeHorne, supra, Volume I at Figure 66 (autopsy photographs 17&18, 44&45). Larry Sturdivan precisely identifies this site with a pointer; see JFK Myths (2005), at 195 (Figure 44). These sites are also identified in PowerPoint slides from my November 2009 lecture in Dallas; see the Mary Ferrell website at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Alternate websites, with slightly updated slides, are at http://www.assassinationscience.com and http://www.assassinationresearch.com.

    84 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1027. Stringer also disagreed with Michael Baden’s orientation (Horne, supra, Volume I at 165).

    85 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 282.

    86 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1147-1155.

    87 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 47.

    88 Horne, supra, Volume II at 642.

    89 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1150. Also see Horne, supra, Volume III at 757, 765-769.

    90 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI at 74. However, Giesecke also thought the occipital wound was on the left side. He later admitted that he had described the wrong side: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf.

    91 Harold Weisberg, Post-Mortem (1969), at 60-61.

    93 Fetzer (2003), supra, at 200.

    94 New York Times, November 23, 1963; Edgar F. Tatro, The Quincy Sun, November 21, 1984, at 1-17.

    95 Bill Sloan, JFK: Breaking the Silence (1993), at 183.

    96 See the incision in the high right forehead, near the hairline, in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 62.

    97 The autopsy photo of the left lateral head also does not show such an entry hole: Ibid. at Figure 59.

    98 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1063-64.

    99 Ibid. at 1045 (footnote). Also see Harry Livingstone, Killing the Truth (1993), at 195.

    100 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 35.

    101 David W. Mantik and Cyril H. Wecht, ‘Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Brain Enigma,’ in James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, editors, The Assassinations (2002), at 264.

    102 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1151. Also compare Wilbur’s description of the wound location to that of Dr. Marion Jenkins before the Warren Commission: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/jenkins.htm.

    103 Horne, supra, Volume III at 777-844: ‘Two Brain Examinations – Cover-up Confirmed.’ The relevant table is at 791. Horne’s ARRB memo was dated June 2, 1998. Only while writing this review did I recall that I had asked this same question some years earlier. See Harry Livingstone, Killing Kennedy (1995), at 268 (footnote): ‘Is Boswell describing different brains on these two occasions?’ Horne, however, was the one who pursued the question fully.

    104 Horne, supra, Volume I at 42-43.

    105 Mantik and Wecht (2002), supra, at 250-271.

    106 These sites are precisely identified in PowerPoint slides from my November 2009 lecture in Dallas; see the Mary Ferrell website at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Alternate websites, with slightly updated slides, are at http://www.assassinationscience.com and http://www.assassinationresearch.com.

    107 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999.

    108 In his defense, Horne notes that Lipsey recalled seeing the white spot – and also recalled the pathologists’ discussion of it – during his HSCA interview. He even recalled it well enough that he identified this site on a sketch. See http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm. As further corroboration, Horne adds that Robinson also recalled a probe entering low on the back of the head.

    109 For an unbiased perspective, however, see the summary reports of the three medical experts for the ARRB (Horne, supra, Volume II at 583-587). None of them could identify such an entry site on the skull X-rays – and there was great uncertainty about the red spot, as well. For full summaries see Horne’s Appendices at the Mary Ferrell website or visit my November 2009 lecture (about these experts) at the same website: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page.

    110 Most likely the red spot was simply added in the darkroom; after all, that site fit much better with the ‘sniper’s nest’ than did the EOP site. The white spot was merely an oversight. When the darkroom magicians covered up the large skull defect they simply neglected to extend their new (photographic) hairpiece inferiorly enough.

    111 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1335.

    112 See these ghost images in Fetzer (2003), supra, at 210.

    113 Each intersprocket area therefore contains two ghost images: one from the frame before and one from the frame after the primary frame that was exposed.

    114 Fetzer (2003), supra, at xi, 23, 35, 164-169, 209.

    115 Horne, supra, Volume IVat 1309. Healy has suggested two weeks for the complete job (Ibid. at 1339).

    116 Ibid. at 1341 (footnote).

    117 Ibid. at 220.

    118 Fetzer (1998), supra, at 343-344.

    119 See my footnote 1.

    120 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1127-1131 and 1213.

    121 Thomas, Donald B., ‘Echo correlation analysis and the acoustic evidence in the Kennedy assassination revisited.’ Science & Justice (The Forensic Science Society) 41: 21ñ32 (2002).

    123 LBJ later gave Humes a personal set of presidential cufflinks, which Humes wore during his ARRB visit.

    124 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1188. Horne cites these superiors as Edward C. Kenney (Surgeon General of the Navy), Calvin Galloway (Commanding Officer of the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center), and George Burkley (White House Physician). All were admirals. Also see Vincent Palamara’s summary at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part3.pdf.

    125 Josiah Thompson: ‘One way of looking at this continuing argument is to see it as a gigantic waste of time, as a prime example of junk science from educated people who ought to know better. It may have amusement value in some chronicle of ësilly science,’ but, in terms of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, it has produced literally nothing.’ See his entire essay at
    http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.

    126 Rebecca Goldstein (a MacArthur Genius Fellow), The Mind-Body Problem: A Novel (1983), at 140-141.

    127 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 371-411.

    128 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1290. At the 2003 Pittsburgh conference, Cyril Wecht set his sails in precisely the opposite direction – he advised his audience not to trust the experts but instead to do their own analysis; see www.cyrilwecht.com/journal/archives/jfk/index.php. I very much side with Wecht.

    129 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1199.

    130 The National Archives does possess later generation copies of the extant film, labeled as being from the FBI.

    131 Costella implies that this collection process was not entirely successful, i.e., that there were ‘multiple films’ in circulation, ‘not one.’

    132 Ibid. at 1202.

    133 Ibid. at 1199.

    134 That issue was dated November 29, 1963, but most likely it first appeared on newsstands on Tuesday, November 26.

    135 Horne, supra, Volume II at 389.

    136 For an image of the white patch, see Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 67.

    137 See my November 2009 lecture at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Alternate websites, with slightly updated slides, are at http://www.assassinationscience.com and http://www.assassinationresearch.com.

    138 Sturdivan, supra, at 193.

    139 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 38; look inside JFK’s right orbit for this white object. Also see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 120-137.

    140 Horne, supra, Volume II at 583-587. Detailed summaries of the experts’ opinions are in Horne’s Appendices; see the list of appendices in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are posted at the Mary Ferrell website (see my footnote 3 for a link).

    141 Horne, supra, Volume II at 564 (Humes), at 573 (Boswell), and at 580 (Finck).

    142 Sturdivan, supra, at 193.

    143 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 37.

    144 Horne, supra, Volume II at 426, 430-431.

    145 Fetzer (1998), supra, at 120-137. Also see my lecture (November 2009) at the Mary Ferrell website (see my footnote 137). Alternate websites, with slightly updated slides, are at http://www.assassinationscience.com and http://www.assassinationresearch.com.

    146 Horne, supra, Volume II at 546-554.

    147 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002-1013.

    148 http://www.jfklancer.com/Sibert-ONeill.html. Or see Thompson, supra, Appendix G. The time of 7:17 PM appeared in their interview with Arlen Specter (March 12, 1964): FBI 62-109060-2637 at 2. Also see Lifton, supra, at 484-485.

    149 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1008 and Volume I at Figure 70. Also see Military District of Washington, Bird Report and Lifton, supra, at 399, 406-407.