On the London Education Forum, David Von Pein recently cited the existence of witnesses to someone firing a weapon from the SE corner 6th Floor window and challenged me to defend my position that, based on such evidence, I was wrong in asserting that President Kennedy was struck only from the front (which derives from my reading of the Dallas medical reports and testimony).
Here is the reply that I wrote--written to DVP, but also directed at Bugliosi.
TO: DVP (and Vince Bugliosi, who I am sure will be reading this):
I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it.
That could not have been accomplished by simply firing shots and leaving the evidence undisturbed, because the evidence, in that case, would have pointed to the guilty party.
And by "the evidence," I am referring to the standard view of "the evidence" in this case. Surely you are familiar with that "evidence": The rifle, the shells, etc.
So that's why, in this case, the evidence had to be altered,messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms; and that's why the standard techniques of investigation did not (and will not) work in this case. Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will.
Some of that was done before the actual shooting (and I'm referring here to the creation of the so-called "sniper's nest"); and some afterwards (e.g., the planting of a bullet on a stretcher, or bullet fragments in the presidential limousine).
Unfortunately for you and your pal, Vince Bugliosi (who I suspect vets most of your posts, assuming he does not provide actual draft materials for your posts) he views Dealey Plaza (and Oswald) as if he were retrying the Manson case. A madman was responsible; a psycho named Oswald.
But Oswald was not Charlie Manson, and Vince Bugliosi doesn't seem to understand that. And I doubt he ever will.
If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) --all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter.
Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage.
If the President's body was altered (i.e., if the wounds were altered, and bullets removed.) then there were two distinctly separate functions operative in this murder plot--the first, to kill the President; the second, to alter the medical data--i.e., the medical information--so as to change the legal facts as to how he died. The first has to do with the murder; the second, with the cover-up. The first has to do with Kennedy's shooting; the second, with a plan to carry out an elaborate scheme designed to obstruct justice. That's why I have said that in approaching the issue "what happened in Dallas?", a collateral question must first be addressed: Was the body altered? Was there a plan to deceive subsequent investigation?
Not: would I plan a crime this way? That is not the issue, DVP (or Mr. Bugliosi). No one cares how you would have planned the crime. That's irrelevant. Rather, the issue is: what happened in this case?
Do you (Bugliosi) think that what you "would have done" supercedes in importance the evidence of what actually happened in this case?
Someone like yourself, (DVP) or Vincent Bugliosi apparently cannot grasp this concept, and/or simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of the critically important evidence of body alteration (which is the tell-tale sign that there was a serious strategic deception employed in connection with this murder). That would be like refusing to face the fact, in a complex financial transaction, that certain key documents are forgeries, refusing to face the fact that an embezzlement occurred, and insisting on investigating the crime as a normal bank robbery.
But just because Buliogsi wants to play "deaf and dumb" to the contrary evidence does not mean we must follow him down that absurd path.
Why? Because he wrote Helter Skelter?
Why? Because he often behaves like a sneering bully?
So back to basics: what is the answer to this critically important question? Was the body altered? Or not?
That evidence is plentiful, and is the subject of my 32 chapter book Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of President Kennedy first released in January, 1981, and then re-published by three more publishers in the years following. In all, Best Evidence was published by four publishers, was a New York Times best seller, and a Book of the Month Selection. It remained in print for 17 years (and will be published again).
Moreover, if you wish to go "beyond the text" and judge the demeanor of the witnesses, then view the 37 minute documentary film that I produced in 1989: the Best Evidence Research Video, based on the witnesses responses to my questions put to the them over 30 years ago in interviews that were filmed in October, 1980, about a year after my original telephone interviews, and just prior to the January, 1981 release of my book.
In your post, you (or Bugliosi, perhaps) ask: "please. . explain to me what was going through the collective minds and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they deliberately tried to frame a guy in the depository by firing only from the knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake."
" . . all just nuts. . ."; ". . only a total lunatic. . . " ?
Oh pleez. . .
Please spare us the histrionics. This constant hand-wringing. This "Oh my Gosh. . do you really mean it? "; "Can you really believe this?"; "Oh my gosh. . please explain! " Etc etc.
Grow up and face the true legal record in this case--and what it really states, not what you or Bugliosi believe it ought to be were either of you planning President Kennedy's murder.
Now back to your anguished question(s) and your anguished appeal that I respond . . . :
Sorry, but I already did, in Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981. A book which was covered on two full pages in Time magazine, not as a book review, but as a news story. An article in the National Affairs section of Time which noted that this was the first time questions had been raised about the "the deceptive handling of the body."
You bet. (And that's a polite way of stating it.)
As to how and why it may have been planned that way, see my chapter laying it all out, and which is titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception"
There you can read the logic of such a plan. Its all laid out, simple enough for a child to understand. Simple enough even for anyone who went to law school to understand; and certainly simple enough for someone who tried Charlie Manson to understand.
There it is explained why it would be sensible to fire a weapon from one direction, while creating what is tantamount to a diversion designed to create a false public perception as to the origin of the shots. There it is laid out that support for this hypothesis comes from the existing record, where just about all the Dallas doctors, who saw the body before alteration, all said that the shots came from the front. Moreover, there is also laid out the rather peculiar behavior of certain Dallas Police officers who, according to the DPD tapes, immediately (and rather prematurely) radio'd observations calling attention to the sniper's nest, yet (officers who) were never able to produce the identity of the supposed "witness" who provided that information.
You (and/or VB) can bluster and scream and wail and cry all you wish, but I suggest you stop throwing a tantrum, because it comes down to three questions that must be addressed:
(1) Was the body intercepted?
(2) Were the wounds altered?
(3) Was this planned in advance, or was it an ad hoc cover-up?
Here are the facts:
a) Was President Kennedy's body intercepted? Is there evidence of that?
Yes, there certainly is such evidence and, in the words of an experienced investigative reporter who held a top position at CBS network news, said it was "courtroom quality evidence."
Read the chapters concerning all that in Best Evidence, or get a copy of the video and, in 37 minutes, watch the contrasting accounts of Aubrey Rike, who put the President's body, in a 400 pound ($4k) elegant bronze coffin in Dallas; versus the account of Bethesda witnesses who know that it arrived in a shipping casket;
Read the accounts (or see the video) that the body left Dallas wrapped in sheets, but arrived at Bethesda (inside that shipping casket) inside a body bag.
Really, I don't have the time to spoon feed you (or Bugliosi) evidence which has been published 30 years ago, and which has been filmed and even shown on YouTube.
So you can stop the hand-wringing, chest thumping, the raised eyebrows, the screams, the cries, and all the theatrical angst: those are the facts.
Furthermore, the time sequence (of arrivals at Bethesda Naval Hospital) proves the case.
It is a fact that the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 P.M. EST, twenty minutes before the coffin (in the naval ambulance, which arrived at 6:55 PM): that is attested to by the accounts of Dennis David, Don Rebentisch, and the Boyajian document ("18:35," or 6:35 PM).
TV producer Stanhope Gould, who handled the Watergate coverage for Walter Cronkite at the CBS network, worked on this material, re-filmed much of it for a 60 minute documentary on KRON-TV (in San Francisco and its sister station in St Louis). He told the San Francisco newspapers in the fall of 1988 that David Lifton had developed --and filmed-- "courtroom quality evidence" that established that the President's body had been intercepted.
Let me repeat that for the benefit of Mr. Vince Bugliosi: "courtroom quality evidence."
Do either of you understand what that means? Or are you both so self-involved, and so wedded to the "Oswald hypothesis" that you just are incapable of understanding what the evidence indicates in this case?
So please, DVP (and please, Vincent Bugliosi) you can cut out the histrionics, the squeals and cries of disbelief, and just examine the evidence.
Mr. Bugliosi: You're a lawyer, right?
You went to law school right?
You understand what a chain of possession is, and its importance?
And you think, in light of this evidence, that President Kennedy's body was not intercepted?
Oh pleez. . .
But let's now move on to the next question. . .
(b ) Was the body altered--i.e., were the wounds altered? (Is there evidence of that?)
Yes, there is. Plenty of such evidence, both in the area of the head and neck.
And that, too, is laid out, chapter and verse, in Best Evidence.
In Chapter 11 ("The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda") is laid out the evidence that the small penetrating wound of the neck, through which Dr. Perry made a "2-3 cm" trach incision, became --by the time the official autopsy commenced at Bethesda--a horizontal gash that Humes testified was "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges." By the time the body reached Bethesda, there was no evidence whatsoever of the underlying wound which had been there--that, according to the testimony of Commander James Humes, who conducted the autopsy. All he had was that horizontal gash. There was no remaining evidence of the original ound that had been there, even though Dr. Malcolm Perry said publicly that he ahd left the wound "inviolate"!
In Chapter 13 ("The Head Wound: Dallas vs. Bethesda") is the evidence that the wound size dramatically increased by some 400% percent between Dallas and Bethesda. In Dallas, that wound was the size of “a hen’s egg” and located at the bottom of the back of the head. The cerebellum, at the underside of the brain, “protruded” through that wound. At Bethesda, the wound had increased dramatically in size, and extended all the way to the top and forward-right hand side of the head. I’m well aware that some students of this case believe that this was the result of photo forgery—but I’ve interviewed the doctors who dealt with the body—not with photos of the body—and the descriptive discrepancy is rooted in two different views of President Kennedy’s body, regardless of whether photos were also altered in this case.
c) Was this planned in advance? Or was it an ad hoc coverup?
This requires some analysis; and it could go either way--at least that's what I thought when I first addressed this problem back in December, 1966.
In either case, it would be a horrific obstruction of justice.
Even if it was an ad hoc "after-the-fact" plan, it would still be awful and of course extremely important. But I don't believe it was ad hoc. Not at all. I didn't believe it when I wrote Best Evidence, and I don't believe it now. And my reasons are spelled out in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence - - "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception."
This chapter describes what, in effect, was tantamount to the "geometric algorithm" that could have been used to deceive future investigation--even if the precise details of the wounding was not known in advance.
In Best Evidence, I argued that case based on "wound geometry": specifically, based on the medical records from 1963-64, not a single doctor or nurse, in Dallas, saw any back wound. And I can assure you with the publication of my next work, my analysis will go beyond "wound geometry," and the answer will still be "yes." Without a doubt: the alteration of President Kennedy's body was pre-planned, and an integral part of the overall assassination plot.
But for now, let's just briefly recap the way I approached the issue in Best Evidence.
The question really boils down to (c ): if there were no rear entries, then this was clearly planned in advance. Because If there were no rear entries, then this was a "designer shooting." Based on the medical reports (and testimony) from JFK's treatment in Dallas, there were in fact no rear entries. None, based on my interviews with the Dallas nurses: no wounds on the rear surface of Kennedy's body.
Re Governor Connally
I am well aware that Connally was shot--and I believe that most students of this case would agree that his shooting was an unexpected event. My research in the Connally area goes back to 1967, when I interviewed Dr. Charles Gregory (who was in charge of Connally's wrist surgery), and Dr. Robert Shaw (who was in charge of his chest). In addition, there is my in-person tape recorded interview (1982, about six months before her death) with Nurse Doris Nelson who was the first nurse to attend to Connally; and, in addition, I have two interviews--one, an in-person taped interview, and another a detailed filmed interview--with another nurse who played a significant role of the Connally medical treatment. No, I do not believe the official conclusion that Connally was shot "once from behind," and will be dealing with this whole matter in Final Charade.
The wounding of Governor Connally, and the cover-up that occurred in that area in no way affects my conclusions about the covert interception of JFK's body, the removal of bullets from his body, and the alteration of wounds--all of this done in order to create false autopsy conclusions about the gunshot trajectories in this case.
THE CONVERSATIONS Dr. HUMES (at Bethesda) HAD WITH PERRY (in Dallas) - 11/23/63:
Buttressing the case for medical alteration --and the Bethesda doctors keen awareness that this had occurred--is what Dr. Humes asked Dr. Perry when he called him late that night: "Did you make any wounds in the back?"
And then there is the other question he asked him: "Why did you do a tracheotomy?" As [Bethesda medical technician] Paul O'Connor, who said the body arrived with an empty cranium, commented during a filmed interview: "You wouldn't do a craniotomy on a man without a brain."
(DSL FYI: A craniotomy --i.e., a clinical craniotomy--is a surgical exploration of the head, done during life. A "pathological craniotomy" is surgery of the head done in death, e.g., in connection with an autopsy.)
In other words, O'Connor could not understand the anomalous state of the body--an empty cranium, plus a wide gash that was supposed to be trach incision (!). But how could that be? he wondered. Why would anyone do a trach on a person without a brain? Someone who was obviously dead? Etc. He was genuinely confused, and I captured all that on camera.
But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it. Like ostriches, the two of you insist on sticking your head(s) in the sand and pretending such evidence doesn't exist.
So of course the body was altered, and the doctors at Bethesda recognized that. Immediately. That's why Dr. Humes said--and this was written down by the two FBI agents witnessing the beginning of the autopsy--that it was "apparent" that there had been"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."
No such "surgery" had been done in Dallas.
And when, later in the examination, someone showed up in the autopsy room and handed Dr. Humes a large piece of bone from President Kennedy's skull, the two agents recorded what was said to Humes at the time: that this had "been removed." So yes, as JFK researcher Paul Hoch wrote decades ago, there was a perception in the autopsy room that there had been "surgery" prior to the commencement of the official autopsy.
But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it.
Moreover, you would also like to ignore this critical data, even though the FBI internal documents I located (via FOIA) and quoted from in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence ("An Oral Utterance") confirm that, in 1966, agent James Sibert re-affirmed that what he (and O'Neill) wrote in the FBI report was a faithful and accurate account of what Dr. Humes said, at the outset of the autopsy. Still further, you persist in ignoring what is written there even though both FBI Agent Sibert and O'Neill were each called to testify before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1997, and re-affirmed, under oath, that that is what Humes said.
But you (DVP) and your pal (Bugliosi) don't like any of that, do you?
DVP: You note that I once called you a liar. I'll make you a deal: stop making these grandiose sweeping (and completely false) statements that there is no "evidence" (when clearly there is), and I'll stop characterizing your statements in that fashion. But if you insist on making these false statements that "2 and 2 equals 5," then don't expect me to believe you're reacting to the existing record with honesty and integrity.
But let's now return to what seems to be one of the "main points" of your post.
You ask: what about the witnesses who saw someone poking a rifle out of the sixth floor, or appearing to fire one?
What a pathetic rebuttal. (But so glad you asked, because the answer is perfectly clear--and already laid out in my book. Did you bother to read it?)
If so, then you certainly know that I never denied any of that evidence. To the contrary, I accepted it (and still do). And I have studied those accounts most carefully. Not only that, on one of my visits to Dallas, I interviewed Harold Norman, on site, in Dealey Plaza.
If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp? (Are you so wedded to the idea that Oswald was a murderer that you cannot conceive of a plan to frame him for a crime he did not commit?)
Mr. Bugliosi: Are you so (hopelessly) wedded to your life experience (with regard to the Manson case) that you must view Oswald (and Dealey Plaza) through that lens?
But that's absurd.
Here's your choice: either one accepts that there's a gunman up there, or it's a decoy. Agreed? Its one or the other. Can't be both (agreed?)
To repeat: I have never rejected any of the witnesses. To the contrary, I have studied them carefully, and believe that they are truthful about what they saw.
Are either of you saying you cannot conceive of that? That as the presidential limousine proceeded down Elm Street, a diversion was carried out with regard to the sniper's nest, while the real shots were fired from another location? (Please do tell me, because if the answer is “yes,” I’ll try looking up some old Western’s on the Internet, which show how ambushes work, and which I will commend for you to study. . .to raise your level of awareness. . . Let's see. . . "Hopalong Cassidy". . the Lone Ranger. . even John Wayne. . surely you know how ambushes often work--not only in old western movies, but in real-life military situations. (Do you need instruction in such matters? If so, let me know; and I'll find you a tutor.)
I think your problem, Vince Bugliosi (but also DVP) is a failure to think conceptually.
Because if you did, you would tone down the incredulity, tone down the histrionics (and name calling) which pervade your book (and, DVP, your web site(s)) and perhaps be able to understand and differentiate between facts, and artifacts in this case.
FACTS VERSUS ARTIFACTS
The facts are that the body was altered.
The artifacts are primarily the elements of the phoney sniper's nest.
As CBS-TV producer Stanhope Gould stated to the media, circa 1988 (after going over the ground covered in Best Evidence and re-filming the same witnesses): David Lifton has developed "courtroom quality evidence" on that point.
To those reading this post: someone I know took a law class from Mr. Bugliosi some decades back, at a small West Los Angeles law school before he became "rich and famous" as a result of the Manson case. His observations:
"He's no dummy, but he's not that smart, either. He was very anal, and very linear. A 'by the book' kind of guy."
I tend to agree. And its easy to see how he became involved with the JFK case.
First, there was Helter Skelter (not exactly a profound mystery as to who as responsible); and then Vince was offered the job of being the prosecutor on "Trial of Oswald", in London, and distributed by Showtime here in this country.
So there he was, "prosecuting" Oswald, and on national TV (via Showtime) day after day, week after week.
Unfortunately, for Vince B., and when it came to Dallas: he was attracted to the appearance, not the reality; to the artifacts, and so he missed the facts.
The artifacts, for the most part, are those items --really "props"--that create the appearance that Oswald shot the President. And they certainly qualify as "artifacts" if the President's wounds were altered, and the autopsy results falsified. (And by "autopsy results," I'm referring to bullet trajectories).
To get beyond the artifacts, and to the facts, you have to think conceptually.
You have to address the authenticity of the evidence.
You have to look at the evidence critically, take into account all the data, and grasp the fact that a disguise was in force at the time of the assassination.
A philosophy instructor whose lecture I once attended once tried to explain what that means. He offered the following illustration.
THINKING CONCEPTUALLY. . .
A lecturer is standing before the class, and he begins his lecture...
He says, "There were three men in a boat. . . ";
A student raises his hand, interrupting, and shouts, "Which boat?"
Yes, he really asked that: which boat?
When I first heard that, I burst out laughing. What a great example.
Perhaps the two of you can benefit from that example, because I sometimes wonder about your collective ability to grasp abstractions.
All to often, you both behave like the guy that stands up and proudly advertises his inability to think conceptually by shouting "Which boat?"
Try thinking conceptually.
Try thinking abstractly.
AN EXERCISE TO PONDER
Here's an exercise to ponder: you want to shoot the President.
How are you going to do it, and get away with it?
Think about it, fellas.
And then consider all the evidence that, in this case, the body was altered.
What it means is that this was no ordinary murder.
I shouldn't have to tell you that, but it bears repeating.
Someone came up with the idea of falsifying the facts of the case.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
Nothing's easy, but it can be done (and apparently was done, in this case).
That means killing the President and then changing the facts about how he died.
Is that a concept too hard to grasp?
Stop approaching this case like the guy that raises his hand, in class, and exclaims:
The President was killed and the truth is not known because bullets were removed and wounds altered prior to autopsy.
That's what happened in this case.
The victim’s body—the most critical evidence in this case (or in any murder), evidence that normally could (and would) be relied upon to provide a fount of reliable data and a legal foundation for ascertaining the basic facts—was corrupted.
That's why an old and decrepit rifle the police recovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD appears to be the murder weapon.
Your 1500 page book , Vince, is a monument to your obstinacy, your ego, and, unfortunately, your gullibility; because you have accepted falsified evidence as real. Because of that, you took seriously the false version of history that was created on 11/22/63, by Kennedy's murderers, to hide the truth about how he died; falsified evidence which then became legal foundation for concluding that Lee Oswald was Kennedy's assassin.
You swallowed all that hook, line and sinker.
Stop ignoring the evidence, Vince.
Stop behaving like someone standing up and exclaiming: "Which boat?!"
This was a body-centric plot.
President Kennedy was a person to be killed; and then his body was treated like a target to be altered.
That's why Commander Humes called Dr. Perry that night and asked: "Did you make any wounds in the back?"
That's why Dr. Humes said--in front of two FBI agents--that when the body as first viewed, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."
That’s why the FBI also reported that the autopsy doctors, when they first examined the body, “were at a loss to explain” why “they could find no bullets.”
All of this sailed right by the Warren Commission and that's why their conclusions are wrong, even though they are based, supposedly, on the "best evidence."
They did their work in 1964, and I can understand why they may have been deceived.
But you came along years later. Many years later. Four years after the 1981 publication of Best Evidence.
Why can't you "get it"? The issue is not who put the bullets into the President's body, but who took them out.
If you persist in ignoring the plentiful evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted and altered, and that's how the autopsy results in this case were falsified, you will persist in making false pronouncements about this case.
You will persist in bragging about the "50 plus things" that prove Oswald was guilty, always turning away from the truth, and blind to the fact that your entire edifice is built --legally speaking--on a foundation of sand.
You will persist in failing to recognize the importance of the evidence of interception.
You will persist in failing to recognize the serious obstruction of justice that followed the President's murder.
You will fail to understand that by the time the President's body arrived at Bethesda, and certainly by the start of the official autopsy, a second crime had occurred, a serious obstruction of justice.
You will persist in claiming that Oswald shot the President, which is both silly and false.
You will not have "reclaimed history" at all, and you are seriously self-deluded if that's what you think you have accomplished.
To the contrary: you will go down in history as a prosecutor who became famous because of the Manson case, but who, in the case of President Kennedy (which is far more complex) was duped by a disguise. Someone who, viewed historically, became an enabler of the plotters.
Let me remind you of the cautionary note spoken by Lee Oswald, to his brother, during their brief jailhouse visit, the day before he was murdered while in police custody:
"Do not form any opinion on the so-called evidence." (1 WCH 468)
That is advice you ought to heed while you sit on your porch in retirement, smug and comfortable in your waning years, while you believe you have arrived at the truth.
You're under a serious misapprehension if that's what you think you have accomplished.
You have not done that at all.
You have simply demonstrated that, with all your training in the law (or perhaps because of it?), you were incapable of distinguishing the false from the real.
5/4/13 7 PM
Los Angeles, California[/s]
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 07:39:41 AM by David Lifton »