Understanding the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Cover-Up

[John Corbett]

Key and revealing information about the cover-up surfaced when the ARRB interviewed autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer. Custer's testimony proves that the plotters were already exploring ways to produce altered skull x-rays the day after the autopsy.

Custer told the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, and was told to tape some metal fragments to skull bones and x-ray them. Custer x-rayed them with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer stated that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK. Custer added that Dr. Ebersole suggested that he “should forget” everything he was about to see:

A: The next morning I took them.

Q: And where did you take those X-rays?

A: In the main department, in a private room, with a portable X-ray unit.

Q: Was it the same x-ray unit that was used m to take the autopsy -

A: Yes, sir. The same distance.
 
Q: And what was the purpose of taking these x-rays?

A: I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy.

Q: What did you do when you took the x-rays? What were the procedures? How did you go about taking them?

A: All I did was place the bone fragments on the film, and I made different exposures at different distances.

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole say anything to you about metal fragments?

A: He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bones. . . .

Q: Let me try asking you one question, just to make sure that the record is clear on this. Did Dr. Ebersole ask you to tape the metal fragments to the bone after he had returned from the White House? Are you able to say with certainty?

A: Absolutely. As soon as he walked in, that’s the first thing he said. “I want these bone fragments x-rayed with metal fragments taped”. . . .

Q: Is there any question in your mind whether you, in fact, taped metal fragments to the bones?

A: Absolutely no question at all in my mind. . . .

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole ever subsequently explain to you the purpose for taping metal fragments to the bones to be -

A: No, he didn’t. He just stated to me, when he brought the film -- the bone fragments and the metal fragments to me, that he had just come back from the White House after being debriefed.

Q: And what did he say about that debriefing?

A: WelI, he just said that he was debriefed by the Secret Service. And that was it.
High-ranking people had talked to him. And he suggested to me that everything that I see from now on, I should forget. (“Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer,” ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 143-146)

Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. Ultimately, the plotters opted not to use these x-rays because they realized that the x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be virtually impossible to detect at the time.

Scientific proof of the alteration was not discovered until Dr. David Mantik performed optical density (OD) measurements on the skull x-rays in the 1990s. Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that the white patch in the lower rear parietal-occipital area is a physical impossibility for a human skull.

Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted over a somewhat smaller genuine bullet fragment and a tiny bullet fragment. The largest of the two fragments is an irregular and jagged fragment measuring 2.0 mm at its narrowest point and 2.5 mm at its widest point, and measuring right around 6.3 mm in height. The tiny fragment is roughly circular and has a diameter of about 0.25 mm.

The density of these two genuine metal fragments is far less than the impossibly density of the 6.5 mm object as established by its OD measurements. The density of the two fragments is consistent with the density of metal fragments, whereas the 6.5 mm object's density is a physical impossibility if the object is metallic, proving that it is a ghosted image.

Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray. The 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral skull x-rays, further absolute proof that the object is not metallic.

BTW, when Dr. Mantik read Custer’s ARRB testimony, he contacted Custer and was able to interview him at length. Custer reaffirmed his ARRB testimony in every detail.

It's truly amazing what you accept as proof. 30 year old recollections from an x-ray technician don't prove anything. Even if true, the conclusions you draw from his statement are highly illogical. You assume every unexplained event has sinister connotations.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Part of understanding the cover-up is understanding the fact that some law enforcement agents pressured some witnesses to change their stories or misrepresented what the witnesses told them.

A prime example of this is the case of Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers. O'Donnell and Powers were two of JFK's best friends and top aides. They rode in the follow-up car during the assassination. Both men revealed to Congressman and future Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill in 1968 that they were certain they heard shots fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It should be noted that both men were World War II combat veterans. Yet, both men changed their story in their Warren Commission statements and went along with the claim that all the shots came from the TSBD.

Why the change? What happened? In O'Donnell's case, we know what happened.

When O’Donnell was interviewed by the FBI, he told the agents he was certain he had heard two shots fired from behind the fence on the  knoll. The agents responded by telling him that that could not have happened and that he must have been imagining things. As a result, O’Donnell decided to testify “the way they wanted me to.” O’Donnell revealed this to Tip O’Neill at a private dinner in Boston in 1968, and Powers confirmed O’Donnell’s account of grassy knoll shots to O’Neill at the dinner and later. Powers, like O'Donnell, heard shots fired from the fence. O’Neill discussed O’Donnell’s revealing disclosure in his 1987 memoir:

I was never one of those people how had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the president’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

“That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said.

“You’re right,” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to”. . . .

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s. Kenny O’Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story. (Tip O'Neill, Man of the House: The Life and Political Memoirs of Speaker Tip O'Neill, Random House edition, 1987, p. 178).

If the FBI could pressure two presidential aides into changing their stories, imagine how many ordinary witnesses decided to change their stories after being pressured the way O'Donnell was.

It is also worth remembering that we have a long list of witnesses who later said their FBI statements misrepresented what they told the interviewing agents.

From a number of eyewitness accounts of being pressured to change their stories about the origin and number of the shots, we gather that the following arguments were used to try to persuade them to alter their stories:

-- "You could not have heard more than three shots because we have hard medical and physical evidence that only three shots were fired and that they all came from behind."

-- "You were merely hearing echoes of the shots that Oswald fired from the sixth-floor window. The echoes made it sound like there were more than three shots, but we know for a fact that only three shots were fired."

-- "If you insist on claiming you heard more than three shots or shots from the front, in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary, you're only going to cause more pain and confusion for the Kennedy family. They need closure."

We still see lone-gunman theorists repeating the argument that the many witnesses who said they heard shots fired from the grassy knoll merely heard echoes of the sixth-floor gunman's alleged three shots. WC skeptics have refuted this argument many times. In his superb 1998 book Cover-Up, mathematician Stewart Galanor explains why the echoes argument is invalid:

Echoes are caused by sound bouncing off large, hard surfaces. . . . There are no buildings on the knoll or overpass that would have reflected sound back to confuse witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Beyond the knoll the terrain is flat with railroad tracks, while the knoll is covered with grass, shrubs, and trees that absorb sound. If there were any echoes, they would have been caused by the sound of rifle fire from the knoll echoing off the Book Depository (p. 76).

I should add that the sound of rifle fire from the knoll could have also bounced off the Dal-Tex Building and the County Records Building.

Galanor documents that of the 218 witnesses in Dealey Plaza for whom we have a record of their interviews, 58 of them said shots came from the grassy knoll; 35 said they could not tell where the shots came from; and 70 of them were not asked to say where they thought the shots came from (Cover-Up, pp. 171-176).

Additionally, Galanor devotes 10 pages to discussing the cases where eyewitness accounts were misrepresented by federal agents (Cover-Up, pp. 66-75).

More of the evidence that shots came from the grassy knoll:

-- Six railroad workers said they saw smoke arising from a point on the knoll during the shooting.

-- The Wiegman film shows a small cloud of smoke hanging above the fence on the knoll. This smoke could not have come from the steam pipe in the railroad yard nor from exhaust from the patrol bikes.

-- Two witnesses saw a man running from the fence into the railroad yard after the shots were fired.

-- Several witnesses said they smelled the pungent odor of gun powder on or near knoll right after the shots were fired.

-- Three cars clearly seem to have scouted the area behind the knoll during the 35 minutes before the shooting. The first car came at 11:55, the second at 12:15, and the third at 12:20. One of the driver's appeared to be talking into a microphone. We know they were not local police or federal personnel, and they surely were not looking for a parking space.

In his 11/22/1963 FBI statement, Lee Bowers, who observed the cars from his railroad tower behind the parking lot, said that three cars entered the parking lot behind the knoll in separate trips before Kennedy’s motorcade entered the plaza. He said the cars drove around slowly and then left the area. He told the WC that the first car appeared to be “checking the area,” and he used the words “probed” and “searching” to describe the actions of the second and third cars.

-- A credible eyewitness, Julia Ann Mercer, the wife of a former U.S. congressman, said that before the assassination she saw a man exit the back of a truck with an encased rifle in his hand on Elm Street, and that the man headed toward the grassy knoll.

Both of her first two documented accounts that she gave to federal and local law enforcement contain the same essential elements: there was a parked truck; there were two men in the truck; the man who was not driving took something from the back of the truck; the object that the man took from the back of the truck looked like a rifle encased in some kind of material; the man who exited the truck carrying an encased rifle headed up the grassy knoll.

In tacit recognition of the consistency in Mercer's accounts, WC apologist John McAdams allowed that her initial statements to the Dallas sheriff’s department and the FBI were truthful, but he suggested that she innocently mistook a tool box for a gun case. However, even in her first statement, Mercer specified that the object the man was carrying was 3.5 to 4 feet long and 8 inches wide at its widest point and tapered down to 4 or 5 inches wide at its narrowest point, which obviously rules out a tool box.

Moreover, to his credit, McAdams also acknowledged that soon after the assassination, Mercer told a Secret Service agent who was talking to witnesses in the sheriff’s office that she had seen a man with a gun case. The agent was Special Agent Forrest Sorrels. Sorrels told the WC that he spoke with a lady in the sheriff’s office who told him that she had seen “somebody that looked like they had a gun case.” McAdams conceded that “the lady pretty much has to be Mercer,” and that she said this before she was interviewed by the sheriff’s department.

-- Acoustical scientists consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined with a probably of over 95% that a gunshot impulse pattern on a police dictabelt recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting was caused by a shot fired from the grassy knoll. Even the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to discredit the HSCA's acoustical evidence was only able to reduce the probability of the grassy knoll shot down to 77.7%, and they did so by introducing two outright errors into their calculations, as several scientists have pointed out (e.g., Dr. Paul Chambers, Dr. Don Thomas, and David Scheim).

New research on the acoustical evidence conducted by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018 proves that the alleged Decker "hold everything" crosstalk that critics have claimed refutes the acoustical evidence is not crosstalk at all but is an overdub that occurred during the copying process. Dr. Josiah Thompson spends over 100 pages discussing this historic new research in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas.

The argument that the Decker transmission proves the impulse patterns on the dictablet were recorded after the assassination never made any sense from the outset. The argument always required the specious assumption that Channel 2 on the dictabelt stopped recording for 31 to 60 seconds.

As several scientists pointed out years ago, for this Channel-2-recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there is none. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation. The NRC/NAS failed to explain this problem, as did Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey in their 2005 rebuttal to Dr. Don Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence.

In a 14-page critique of Dr. Thompson's 100-plus-page presentation on the acoustical evidence in Last Second in Dallas, Louis Girdler, writing under the pseudonym "Premier Kissov," says absolutely nothing about any of these things -- says nothing about the new BBN research (such as Dr. Richard Mullen's PCC testing of the Decker transmission, which proves it is an overdub and not crosstalk), and says nothing about the impossible Channel-2-recording-pause theory, which was the crucial assumption of the debunked Decker-crosstalk argument ("'Your Lying Eyes'--Josiah Thompson's Lonely Labrinth: A Critical Review of 'Last Second in Dallas,'" pp. 27-40).

Instead, Girdler simply rehashes some of the arguments made by the NRC/NAS panel, by Anthony Pellicano (who actually accidentally provided strong evidence against the Channel-2-recording-pause theory and provided evidence that the bell sound on the dictabelt does not automatically mean it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination), by the FBI's Technical Services Division (who employed no acoustical scientists and proved they didn't even understand how N-waves can be identified in audio recordings), by some Sonalyst analysts (who didn't even understand how AGC works), and by amateurs such as Jim Bowles and Michael O'Dell.

You would think that any critical review of Thompson's book would deal with the historic new BBN research on the acoustical evidence, especially the two addendums written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Mullen, but Girdler says nothing about any of this. Girdler also says nothing about the NRC/NAS panel's admissions about the high probabilities of the timing-movement correlations and the grassy knoll shot, nor about the windshield-distortion correlations.

[John Corbett]

Part of understanding the cover-up is understanding the fact that some law enforcement agents pressured some witnesses to change their stories or misrepresented what the witnesses told them.

Why the hell would they do that?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Why the hell would they do that?

Why "would" they do that?! They did do that with Kenny O'Donnell, a presidential aide and a close friend of JFK's.

Did you even bother to read beyond the first sentence of my reply? If you did, how did you miss the fact that FBI agents did this with O'Donnell?

[John Corbett]

Why "would" they do that?! They did do that with Kenny O'Donnell, a presidential aide and a close friend of JFK's.

You negated the question which is why would they do that. Instead of answering you just doubled down. It's funny because you are always accusing me of dodging questions.

Would you like to take another crack at it?

Did you even bother to read beyond the first sentence of my reply? If you did, how did you miss the fact that FBI agents did this with O'Donnell?

No. Why would I. When you start with a false pretense, there's really no point in going beyond that. When you miss the first turn on your journey, it makes no sense to continue in the wrong direction.

If you expect me to accept your premise, you first must establish its validity.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You negated the question which is why would they do that. Instead of answering you just doubled down. It's funny because you are always accusing me of dodging questions.

Would you like to take another crack at it?

No. Why would I. When you start with a false pretense, there's really no point in going beyond that. When you miss the first turn on your journey, it makes no sense to continue in the wrong direction.

If you expect me to accept your premise, you first must establish its validity.

I can tell you have no idea how badly you've embarrassed yourself here.

I pointed out that Kenny O'Donnell said that FBI agents pressured him into changing his account of where he heard shots coming from. And you replied by ignoring O'Donnell's account and posed a question that assumed the whole issue was hypothetical, as if O'Donnell never said that FBI agents pressured him into changing this story.

It's as if I pointed that Ronald Reagan cut taxes and you answered by saying, "Why would he have cut taxes?" as if he did not cut taxes.

The valid question to ask is, Why did some FBI agents pressure witnesses into changing their stories, and why did they misrepresent what some witnesses told them? We know this happened. It's been documented in spades. The question is, why did it happen?

Well, it's not complicated: There was a high-level cover-up underway. Some federal agents were ordered to suppress unwelcome testimony and evidence. Some agents did not even need to be told to do this because they didn't want to be the agents who forwarded reports that contained information that contradicted the government's version of the shooting. Some agents may have actually been totally convinced that the government's version was correct and believed that therefore witnesses whose accounts contradicted that version must have been mistaken, must have "imagined" that they heard shots from the knoll, must have "imagined" that they heard more than three shots (or must have heard echoes of the three shots), etc., etc.

We see similarly serious and varied actions of cover-up and reasons for those actions in the Iran-Contra Scandal of the 1980s. Many of the personnel who aided in the attempted massive cover-up did not realize they were aiding a massive cover-up. Some of the personnel suppressed or destroyed evidence because they were ordered to do so. And some personnel, the higher-level ones, knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. Moreover, the cover-up came very close to succeeding. If just a few more key documents had been shredded, the Iran-Contra conspiracy may not have been exposed for years or even decades.

Sometimes I'm almost tempted to ask if you live on a different planet or in some alternative reality where federal agents and police officers never plant evidence, never alter photos or films, never misrepresent witness interviews, never suppress evidence, never destroy evidence, never try to pressure witnesses into changing their stories, etc., etc. That's a fantasy world, not the world that we inhabit.

Do you have any idea how many times FBI agents have been caught altering evidence, suppressing evidence, giving false statements, etc., etc.?

Here's what a Google AI response says on the subject:

Documented instances of FBI personnel planting or altering evidence or official records include the following cases:

Kevin Clinesmith (2020): An FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an email submitted for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application during the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Special Report found he had changed the wording of an email from another agency to incorrectly state that an individual was not a "source" for another government agency.

Matthew Lowry (2015): An FBI agent in Washington, D.C., was charged with obstructing justice and falsifying records after he allegedly stole heroin from evidence, ingested it, and replaced the missing volume with a cutting agent before returning the evidence bags to the vault.

The FBI Crime Lab Scandal (1990s): Following reports by whistleblower Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, an extensive Department of Justice Inspector General investigation revealed systemic misconduct inside the elite FBI Crime Lab. The findings highlighted cases of scientists and agents altering reports, selectively presenting evidence, and providing scientifically invalid, pro-prosecution testimony in major criminal trials.

Frederic Whitehurst's reports to agency officials ultimately forced the bureau to overhaul its lab practices and launch widespread reviews of historical forensic testimony.

Links:

https://whistleblowersblog.org/government-whistleblowers/intelligence-community-whistleblowers/dr-whitehurst-and-the-fbi-lab-scandal/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32380051

Shall we talk about the conduct of some FBI agents and the FBI lab in the JFK case? Let's see: destruction of evidence, contradictory lab reports, producing witness interview reports that misrepresented what the witnesses said, etc. etc. I just have to wonder what you have read on the JFK case to not know these things. 

Ditto for some police departments, especially the Dallas and Los Angeles police departments. Do you have any idea how many times the Dallas police and the LA police have been caught planting evidence, suppressing evidence, giving false statements, etc.?

Heard of the Ramparts Scandal involving the LA police where some officers and detectives were found to have planted evidence and given false statements? The city of LA had to pay a massive settlement to settle all the lawsuits that came when these cases were exposed.

Some links for your education:

https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/4627/galley/21460/view/

https://peabodyawards.com/award-profile/fake-drugs-real-lives/

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2006/mar/15/dallas-fake-drug-cases-settle-for-millions-jury-awards-damages/

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm

"Dallas Police Officer Accused of Planting Evidence Turns Himself In"

"Crooked Cop Caught Red Handed Planting Evidence"

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr129/BILLS-117hr129ih.htm
EXCERPT: In what became known nationally as the ``Sheetrock'' scandal, Dallas police officers and undercover informants were found to have set up dozens of innocent people, mostly Mexican immigrants, by planting fake drugs on them consisting of chalk-like material used in sheetrock and other        brands of wallboard. The revelations led to the dismissal of over 40 cases (although some of those arrested were already deported). In April 2005, a former Dallas narcotics detective was sentenced to five years in prison for his role in the scheme. Charges against others are pending.

https://pelleylaw.com/blog/2017/08/cops-planting-drugs-it-doesnt-just-happen-in-the-movies/

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/January/04_crt_041.htm

https://markshawbooks.com/assets/docs/New-Evidence-Proving-Warren-Commission-Corruption_Oct-26-2023-1.pdf

FBI Crime Lab scandal and Other Cases of Evidence Tampering/fabrication:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html?scp=8&sq=Ultraviolet&st=Search

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9704a/index.htm (even this quasi-whitewash of the crime lab scandal by the DOJ IG contains a great deal of damning evidence of misconduct and incompetence by FBI crime lab experts)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/08/06/minimal-punishment-meted-in-fbi-lab-flap/074b8ecc-8190-4983-a112-86504ff21be4/

https://makejusticeblind.com/a-roundup-of-the-key-facts-of-the-tampering/ (discusses a case where photos were altered by the FBI to help convict someone--gee, sound familiar?)

https://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/real-cases-of-forensic-fraud-flawed-evidence

Secret Service Misconduct in JFK Case and Other Cases:

We now know that HSCA staff counsel Belford Lawson, who conducted the Committee’s investigation of the Secret Service, suspected that a Secret Service agent planted CE 399 at Parkland Hospital. In a memo on the interview with Nathan Pool, who had seen a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, Lawson noted that a Secret Service agent was close enough to the area where the bullet was found to have planted the bullet, and that following up on Pool’s testimony could have led to identifying the agent:

A Secret Service agent was for a significant period of time close enough to the elevator to plant a bullet; may lead to an identification of that agent; and will reveal the superficiality of the Warren Commission’s approach. (“Untaped Interview of January 10, 1977, with Nathan Pool,” HSCA memorandum from Belford Lawson to Robert Tanenbaum, January 12, 1977, record number 180-10089-10189, available at
https://ia801206.us.archive.org/31/items/nsia-PoolNathan/nsia-PoolNathan/Pool%20Nathan%2001.pdf)

Dr. Donald Wilkes, "The Secret Service and the JFK Assassination"
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=fac_pm

https://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Guilt-Service-Failure-President/dp/1937584607

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/slideshows/prostitutes-grenades-and-drunk-driving-20-years-of-secret-service-scandals

https://time.com/3449641/secret-service-scandal/

A good introduction to the subject of the dubious evidence cited against Oswald is Donald Wilkes' article "Lee Harvey Oswald, the Patsy: An Objective Review of the Evidence Concludes That Oswald Was Framed," published by the University of Georgia in 2013 on the University of Georgia Digital Commons: Popular Media website. At the time, Wilkes was an emeritus professor of law at the University of Georgia. Here's a link to his article:

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1184&context=fac_pm

The case of Randall Adams. The award-winning 1988 Errol Morris documentary The Thin Blue Line documents the now-infamous case of Randall Adams, who was framed and railroaded by the DPD and the Dallas District Attorney's (DA's) office in 1976 on the false charge of killing a police officer named Robert Wood.

The film documents that the DPD used false witnesses, suppressed exculpatory evidence, discarded the most likely suspect (who later confessed), and refused to let Adams talk to a lawyer for two weeks. Gee, sound familiar? The DA was Henry Wade. The DPD officer who engineered the frame-up was Gus Rose. Humm, do those names sound familiar?

The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals overturned Adams' conviction in 1989 on the grounds of prosecutorial malfeasance (misconduct) and inconsistencies in the evidence. It had become clear that Adams had nothing whatsoever to do with Officer Wood's murder.

Yet, even after the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals voided Adams' conviction, DA Wade vowed to retry Adams, saying there was no room in his book "for a cop-killer getting off with anything else than the death penalty"! Mind you, this was after the state's criminal appeals court had found the DA's office guilty of misconduct! This says volumes about Wade's ethics and integrity.

Because of public pressure created by the release of The Thin Blue Line and pressure from state government officials, the Dallas DA's office eventually decided against retrying Adams.

Here's the transcript of The Thin Blue Line:

https://www.errolmorris.com/film/tbl_transcript.html

Here are links with more information on the DPD's sleazy record, running clear into the 2020s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#:~:text=in%20July%202008.-,Fake%20drug%20scandal,were%20actually%20not%20illegal%20substances.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/fourth-former-dallas-officer-in-fake-drug-scandal-gets-one-year-probation/287-338790876

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Dallas-police-hammered-for-fake-drug-scandal-1486478.php

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/6-dallas-police-officers-on-leave-linked-to-illegal-search/2748127/

Here are links with information on cases of other police departments planting and fabricating evidence:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6013&context=law_lawreview

https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/4692-cops-planting-evidence

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty_scholarship/article/1903/&path_info=S_Fisher_Just_the_Facts.pdf

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/police-corruption-revealed-los-angeless-rampart-division
Discusses the LAPD's Rampart scandal, where the LAPD was caught planting and fabricating evidence in the 1990s. The city of LA eventually was forced to pay millions to settle the civil lawsuit brought by some of the victims.

https://jmarshlaw.com/chicago-police-planted-evidence/
Discusses three cases where the Chicago Police Department was caught planting evidence from the 1980s to the mid-2000s.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf

[John Corbett]

I can tell you have no idea how badly you've embarrassed yourself here.

I pointed out that Kenny O'Donnell said that FBI agents pressured him into changing his account of where he heard shots coming from. And you replied by ignoring O'Donnell's account and posed a question that assumed the whole issue was hypothetical, as if O'Donnell never said that FBI agents pressured him into changing this story.

Telling a witness he was wrong about his observation does not equate to pressuring him to change his story. The FBI knew the shots had not come from the GK and they told O'Donnell that. If he decided to alter his testimony, that is on him.

You don't quote Kenny O'Donnell. You quote Tip O'Neill quoting Kenny O'Donnell so we don't know how O'Donnel actually described the encounter. You are describing your impression of the impression O'Nell got from what O'Donnell said. A hearsay account hardly establishes that the FBI "pressured" O'Donnell to change his story. 

So I'll ask my question again. Why would the FBI pressure O'Donnell into changing his story.

The more fundamental question is, were any shots actually fired from the GK. There is no forensic evidence pointing to a shot from the GK. There were no eyewitness to a shot from the GK. There was an eyewitness who had a perfect view of the are behind the wooden fence when the shots were fired and he saw no one there. The only "evidence" of shots from the GK are the impressions of a group of earwitnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. They are contradicted by another group of witnesses who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. The latter group is corroborated by 3 spent shell found in the sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. No corroboration for the earwitnesses who thought the shots came from the GK. That includes Kenny O'Donnell.