A man does what he must--in spite of
personal consequences, in spite of
obstacles and dangers and pressures-
-and that is the basis of all human morality.

--John F. Kennedy

 

Chapter 2

"The Duplicate Evidence Theory"

Fabrication Of The Evidence In The Assassination

 

This chapter will develop a new theory of the evidence. There seems to be at least two versions of each piece of evidence. Certainly there is a reason for this, and it is my opinion that the reason is not mere accident, but shows evidence of duplicity and sinister intent.

I call this "The Duplicate Evidence Theory."

 

FABRICATED MEDICAL EVIDENCE:

TWO OR THREE CONFLICTING AUTOPSY REPORTS AND TWO CHAINS OF EVIDENCE

Dr. James J. Humes admitted, after more than thirty-three years, that he burned a full draft of the autopsy report he wrote, not just his notes.

There is ample evidence that there was an original autopsy report that had conflicting facts from the extant autopsy report we have ended up with. Comparison of statements made by J. Lee Rankin (Chief Counsel of the Warren Commission) with a conflicting statement in the report written by FBI agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Niell, after observing the autopsy; with what the official December 9, 1963, FBI report of the assassination claimed, gives us a clue of different findings evidently before the new autopsy report was created and substituted in the evidence.

There seem to be two chains of evidence with regard to the autopsy report. One document records that the original report (and copies) was transferred from Dr. Burkley (and the Secret Service) to Mrs. Lincoln, the Kennedy family representative (whose office was at the National Archives) on April 26, 1965. Lincoln, Kennedy's former secretary, accepted the materials which included the autopsy photos, X-rays, and presumably, the brain, for Robert F. Kennedy. The 7" in diameter x 8" stainless steel bucket containing what everyone believed to be the brain (i.e., "gross material") is abundantly documented. Robert Kennedy made clear in his memo to Admiral Burkley directing the transfer that he was taking possession of the materials. We are given the clear impression that RFK had none of the autopsy materials, and in other words, the Secret Service had possession of the biological and other autopsy materials until April 26, 1965, when it was given up to Mrs. Lincoln and the Kennedy family. An inventory was made of the contents of the chest by Admiral Burkley and its accuracy was checked by Secret Service executive Robert Bouck. That does not mean we have to trust it, but there were five witnesses. This included the brain until the actual transfer was made.

Why were the autopsy materials and report so long in the possession of the Secret Service? Why is it that only in 1965 evidence appears that Robert Kennedy took possession of the material? Had he tried before and there is no record of it?

The Kennedy family then transferred all of this material except the biological materials, a broken casket handle, and "key documents" to the National Archives with a Deed-Of-Gift letter on October 29, 1966. Two days later all of the excluded materials are noticed to be missing from the Archives and have never been found. These are known as the "Paragraph 9" materials. There is no word from the Kennedy family in all of these years about this material, and apparently the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), charged with locating everything having to do with the case, did not bother to find out if they had them.

A conflicting document says that the original autopsy report was sent directly from James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service, to Robert H. Bahmer, the head of the National Archives, on October 2, 1967. "Since there is no known evidence documenting transfer of the autopsy protocol from the Kennedy family back to the Secret Service prior to this event. . . there is not a continuous and unbroken chain-of-custody for the original protocol for President John F. Kennedy. . . How could the Secret Service transfer the original JFK autopsy protocol to the National Archives (or anyone else) on October 2, 1967, when they had previously relinquished custody of it to Mrs. Lincoln on April 26, 1965?"

The apparent chain-of-custody discrepancy was discussed during a February 13, 1969 meeting between officials from GSA, Secret Service, National Archives, and Department of Justice. One possibility was that the Burkley inventory was mistaken about the original autopsy report being among the papers, but this seems unlikely since the Bouck inventory listed the original protocol on the Burkley list which was to be transferred, and there were witnesses who saw each item.

How did Chief Rowley come to possess the original autopsy report transmitted to the Archives on October 2, 1967?

The ARRB's Doug Horne in his August 2, 1996 addendum to his preliminary short survey of the chain of custody problems with the original autopsy report, continues his research into that area. This material has not been available to the public easily, except for a couple of reports. "Further study of the record has revealed numerous indicia which support the possibility that the original autopsy protocol transmitted by the Burkley inventory and receipt was a different (earlier) report than the autopsy protocol published by the Warren Report (CE 387). The circumstantial evidence for this hypothesis is laid out in some detail below." He begins with a discussion of the fact that one of the documents (the Burkley inventory and receipt) in the record implies that the original was only signed by Dr. Humes, and not by all three doctors as we have with the present version. Horne, by trade a military document analyst, finds that the Burkley inventory is very precise and it would have listed the other doctors by name if they had signed the autopsy report listed in the inventory.

Horne then takes of his case a little farther as he analyses the use of the term "sighted by" with reference to the cover letter which transmitted the protocol to Burkley at the White House. "Sighted by" does not mean that the protocol was signed by all the people named, which included Captain Stover, Admiral Galloway, Elsie Closson (the secretary), and the three pathologists including Humes. The cover letter of transmission "leaves open the question of how many persons, and whom, signed the autopsy protocol being transmitted. Since paragraph 6 states the report was 'sighted' by the authors, it could even be taken to imply that Boswell and Finck did not sign it, but instead merely 'sighted it' along with numerous other persons who presumably are listed together in that paragraph for similar reasons--namely, because they witnessed it, but did not sign it."

This may be hard to follow as we progress, so I'll put it into perspective by saying that the above becomes circumstantial evidence, taken together with additional facts which we'll recite below, that there was a different autopsy report with different facts--one written prior to the one we have now. Like probably everything else in the case--the record was altered.

An executive session of the Warren Commission saw a discussion of the evidence trying to make sense of it, and their chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin, said, "We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . " They must have been looking at a different autopsy report because the one we have now rejected the idea that a fragment exited the neck. The present Official Story (Warren Report) says that a bullet came out of the neck and the Warren Commission theorized that it went through John Connally. The fragment story was suggested the previous November by some in Dallas who thought the low entering bullet in the head had broken up and part came out the neck. Later in this chapter, Tom Robinson, the mortician who did much of the work on the body after the autopsy, describes a probe put through this track during the autopsy--something almost no one cares to admit.

"This statement by Rankin, if not made in error, is circumstantial evidence of a different autopsy report than is in evidence today." It is most unlikely that he is confusing the FBI summary report with the autopsy protocol, since the FBI summary report makes no mention whatsoever of an anterior neck wound other than the tracheostomy they observed, or of any bullet or fragment coming out of the front of the neck; nor does the Sibert-O'Neill Report, which assumed that the bullet fell out during "external cardiac massage" at Parkland. "Further probing determined that the distance traveled by the this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." It was very clear during the autopsy that was what happened, and the original, soon to be destroyed, autopsy report must have said that. The reason?

The government was already in serious trouble as one lie led to another. On 27 December, 1963, an urgent telegram was sent from SAC Dallas FBI to Hoover: "An article appearing in the evening Dallas, Texas, newspaper prepared by staff writer Bill Burrus, dateline Bethesda, Maryland, reflects a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital reflecting President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet, which had a hard metal jacket, exited through his throat. This does not agree with the autopsy findings at the Bethesda Hospital as reported on page two eight four of the Report of SA Robert P. Gemberling at Dallas of December ten, last, which reflects an opening was found in the back, that appeared to be a bullet hole, and probing of this hole determined the distance traveled by the missile was short as the end of the opening could be felt by the examining doctor's finger. . ."

For a moment, we must reflect if normal bureaucratic incompetence is at play here. But a complete examination of all available evidence indicates without doubt that the FBI had it right in their report of what they observed at the autopsy: the bullet did not penetrate the body. The official story as it was to become in its final form was overtaking them, though. The Journal of the American Medical Association, January 4, 1964 (p. 15) reflected the change in transition: "Kennedy Shot Twice in Back." This was based on what they had learned the autopsy doctors had said. "The first bullet reportedly hit Kennedy in the upper part of the right back shoulder. The bullet did not go through his body and was recovered during the autopsy. The second bullet hit Texas Governor John B. Connally who was riding in the President's car. The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat. . . . Kennedy might have survived the first bullet, which may have ricocheted off the limousine before striking him, according to reports. . . . The autopsy report now is in the hands of the Secret Service."

Your red warning flags should go up now in this drama. How come the Secret Service had the report and many other materials? How did they get to be in charge? Like a revolt of the colonels in some Latin American backwater, was there a palace coup?

The Washington Post's Nat Haseltine wrote a story four weeks after the assassination with similar information. Then we hear the Warren Commission's Rankin repeating it a month later as being from "the autopsy report," and from Dallas, that the throat wound was caused by a "fragment" (not a whole bullet) from the head shot. Haseltine wrote that his source was from the unreleased, unofficial report. Haseltine later realized that there had been a change or a mistake, and in 1965 he wrote researcher Paul Hoch that "Apparently my source misunderstood part of the autopsy report he had access to." Horne comments: "In hindsight, another interpretation for the information Haseltine got from his source is that his source was privy to an earlier version of the autopsy protocol than CE 387, one that espoused different conclusions. Thus, the Haseltine story corroborates the remarks of Rankin at the 1/2/64 Executive Session of the Warren Commission."

Conflict Between the Autopsy Report and the FBI Report

According to Horne, "The FBI may have been aware through informal means . . . of the contents of such an early (different) autopsy protocol. The autopsy protocol as we know it today (CE 387) was not formally transmitted to the FBI until 12/23/63; if by this time some of its conclusions had been rewritten, and CE 387 had superseded an earlier version of the protocol, the troubling disagreement (over transit vs. non-transit of the bullet which struck President Kennedy's back) between the FBI report of 12/9/63 and CE 387 which is so apparent today would, in hindsight, make sense for the first time. Restated, the FBI may have believed (or may have known) that its Summary Report of 12/9/63 was consistent with the findings of the Navy autopsy protocol at the time it was issued by J. Edgar Hoover." That FBI report held that John Connally was hit with a separate bullet.

This whole question arises when we consider that the FBI Summary Report of December 9, 1963, and the Sibert/O'Neill Report of the autopsy said the back bullet did not enter the chest. The men at the autopsy stated that the bullet which struck the President in the back did not transit the body, let alone penetrate the chest, and the autopsy report makes only an assumption that it "presumably" did so, without knowing that it did, even though the doctors knew damn well that they were unable to stick a probe through the wound into the interior of the chest, while they were all looking at it through the open rib cage during the attempt. From the inside, there was no penetration.

This gets down to the probability that the FBI did not know the autopsy findings had been changed, and they ran with what their own trained criminal investigators, Sibert & O'Neill, reported from the autopsy, namely that a bullet had lodged in the back and evidently fallen out during "external cardiac massage" at Parkland Hospital.

Horne continues, "If, however, the FBI Summary Report was in synch with an earlier (original) smooth version of the autopsy protocol, then the findings published by the FBI on 12/9/63 would not have been at variance with what they believed were the official Navy findings emanating from the autopsy at Bethesda."

After many years of wrestling with and writing about the autopsy and the wounds seen in Dallas, I refer the reader to the massive documentation I compiled in four previous books that the President's back wound was six inches down on his back and there was no wound in the back of the neck itself, except insofar as there was a wound very low down on the back of the head near the hair line, and some might construe it as being in the neck. But the doctors described it as being on the head close to the external occipital protuberance.

The ARRB did interview some of the Dallas witnesses individually, such as Audrey Bell, Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Robert Grossman, and collectively interviewed five more witnesses including Drs. Robert McClelland and Malcolm Perry. Without exception they all placed a larger exit wound in the right rear of the head, and reconfirmed that cerebellum was extruding from that wound. High Treason made clear that no one could see this large wound until Dr. Clark and other doctors lifted the head slightly and rotated it to Kennedy's anatomical left. Dr. Crenshaw stated that "There was a complete absence of bone, hair and scalp at the wound site." Those who saw the throat wound before the tracheostomy continue to insist that it had the "classic" appearance of an entrance wound of a bullet.

As for the head and throat wound, some of the most explosive testimony came from two widely separate sources, both at the autopsy: 1) Richard Lipsey, the aide to the commanding general of the Washington military district, General Philip Wehle, and 2) Tom Robinson, an embalmer from Gawler's funeral home. Both reported probes stuck through the low wound of entry on the back of Kennedy's head which evidently passed through the floor of the skull and came out the throat wound. There were reports from others that photographs and X-rays once existed showing the probes passed through the neck this way, and Dr. Humes himself told a fellow churchgoer that this was so, who reported it to a producer at CBS who wrote a memo about it. I've commented on this in a previous volume. Both Robinson and Lipsey said the doctors concluded that a bullet had passed from the back of the head out the throat. Such a trajectory might conceivably have passed through John Connally, but the Warren Report did not dare run with that theory since they could not get around the major damage to the president's head from an evident frontal shot.

What is interesting about this is that the Zapruder film shows that Connally is clearly not hit until just before the head shot. Yet the tremendous propaganda machine at work in this case tells us what is, isn't, and what isn't, is. The Warren Commission tells us that Connally is struck when Kennedy is first hit. Kennedy is clearly injured in his neck and was struck in the back several seconds before the fatal head shot. Diana Bowron saw the bullet hole in the back. She marked a copy of the autopsy photo I sent her: "This is not the back I saw." (The photo is just after page 384 of Killing the Truth)

Richard Lipsey corroborates what J. Lee Rankin had to say in the WC executive session in January, 1964, and the Haseltine Post story. "Both observations provide corroboration for the belief that Rankin may have been correctly quoting an autopsy report--simply an earlier (i.e., November 24, 1963) version of the autopsy protocol, not CE 387." Horne thinks that this second report was produced between 24 November and 11 December, 1963 but no later. This is the same interval as the "two brain autopsy" thesis.

Let us digress and look at some corroboration in the news at the time of the assassination or thereafter.

Students of the assassination know that there was a widespread story in Dallas, reported by Bill Burrus in the Dallas Times-Herald on December 12, 1963, that a bullet had come through the President's throat. We also knew that the doctors in Dallas had described the wound as an entry wound. Then Life published (11/29/63 issue, and the Memorial edition the following week) frames from the Zapruder film showing Kennedy grasping at his neck considerably before the head shot. Horne thinks that Life's discussion of the puzzles over the anterior neck wound and their text about the timing of the shots "caused the Secret Service to take the Zapruder film" to the National Photo Interpretation Center, run by the CIA, to have a look. This is wrong because several pieces of evidence, including statements of the two employees at NPIC (see the Zapruder chapter under NPIC) show that they had the film earlier.

This much may be right in Horne's analysis: he thinks there is a linkage between the NPIC analysis and the December 6, 1963, issue of Life. The evidence indicates NPIC had the film the night of the assassination or shortly thereafter, but the technicians were shut up by the Secret Service man (if that was what he was) in attendance who already insisted on the three bullet scenario.

"Thus, it is entirely feasible that study of the Zapruder film (unavailable to the autopsy pathologists the weekend of the assassination)--namely, the unavoidable conclusion that the President was reacting to an apparent throat wound prior to the fatal shot--likely stimulated a reassessment of what caused the anterior throat wound, which in turn may have caused an original version of the autopsy protocol to be rewritten. The new version would of necessity have had to postulate an earlier shot as the cause for the President's arm-splay and 'startle' reactions in the Zapruder film, which a transiting bullet (from posterior thorax to anterior neck) does nicely. Unlike the Sibert-O'Neill Report (11/26/63) and the FBI Summary Report (12/9/63), which both posit non-transit for the bullet which caused the back wound, CE 387 postulates a transiting non-fatal bullet." Those who sought to invent a story that would explain things didn't need the Zapruder film to tell them they had a problem with the President having been shot in the neck or back with a different bullet than the head shot. Too many people, including the President's widow, saw it, or saw the wounds later.

Another story was published on 18 December, 1963 (there were two others--on the first of that month, and the tenth), by Richard Dudman in the St. Louis Post Dispatch which questioned what was described as an entry wound in the throat by the Dallas doctors, when the assassin was later claimed to have been behind Kennedy. The last article was titled "Secret Service Gets Revision on Kennedy Wound. After Visit by Agents, Doctors Say Shot was from Rear. . . The investigators did so by showing the Dallas surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The (Parkland) surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown."

Horne writes in his ARRB memo on this, "The visit Mr. Dudman referred to occurred on December 11, 1963, which is evidenced by attachment 15, which is Secret Service agent Elmer Moore's report of his activities of that date, which included interviews of physicians who attended to President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital." It is important to note, as Horne explains in this memo, that SS agent Moore went to Dallas sometime before his visit November 29 with the Dallas doctors. The following day, the Dallas Times-Herald published the account written by Burrus of the findings in the new autopsy report. "Why agent Moore did not interview Dr. Perry until December 11, 1963 (when he 'went to Dallas on November 29, 1963 to talk with Dr. Perry') goes unexplained in attachments 15 and 16. If the Bethesda autopsy report was rewritten, however, as the evidence marshalled in this memo suggests, then the delay in talking with Dr. Perry would serve as an important time marker as to when it was first available in Dallas: namely, December 11, 1963. This hypothesis is corroborated by the first known news report of a bullet which transited the President's body from the back of the neck to the front of the throat: namely, the Burrus article which appeared in the Dallas Times-Herald on December 12, 1963."

What Richard Lipsey had to say is particularly important if the autopsy report was redone. Lipsey had stated that the doctors said the President was shot three times, and one of these, the back wound, they said, did not exit. We know this from the FBI reports and statements by the corpsmen who were at the autopsy. Lipsey heard and saw the doctors demonstrate a head wound at the base of the skull and saw them probing it so that the probe came out the neck. If this shot came from in front, as the Dallas doctors believed, it struck the neck first and came out at the base of the skull. This shot might very well have lined up with the storm drain ahead of the car. A third shot struck him tangentially and took off the back of his head, and this too, might have been from in front or been one of two head shots (meaning JFK was hit four times). That shot might have come from behind or from in front. It might have come from the area near the Sheriff's office in the Records Building or the area-way between that building and the Courts Building.

Lipsey's testimony to the HSCA, described above, was suppressed by the HSCA along with many other depositions of medical witnesses.

Humes spoke with Perry and learned of the shot to the throat, which he officially did not know about at the time of the autopsy (officially, he only knew there was a tracheostomy there). Lipsey registered the fact that his probe passed from the wound near the base of the skull out the throat wound. We might therefore speculate that the original autopsy report said that three shots hit Kennedy, and that either a fragment or a bullet passed out of the neck, contrary to the observations of Dr. Perry and others said there was an entry hole in the throat, judging from the edges of the wound and its size. But all this was before the overseers of the facts in the overall picture saw that Connally had been hit once or twice and were probably aware that James Tague was hit with debris from a missed shot. Too many shots for the lone gunman scenario. They already had their assassin: the designated patsy. A conspiracy would not do.

Keep in mind that the FBI men at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill, reported that the shot in the back did not penetrate into the chest. We can be sure that this was the truth because the men at the autopsy described the failed attempts to probe the wound. Humes testified to the Warren Commission; when he was shown the President's clothing with bullet holes in it, he admitted "that the hole, which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle of the seam of the coat." Just before this, Humes told Arlen Specter: "It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385."

The dynamite in Humes' testimony, which went right by everyone, or was systematically suppressed in the research community, is that there was a second hole just below the collar. Humes states that: "Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts. . . and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle (sic) or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examination." This might have been the second hole in the back or neck that Lipsey describes in his testimony and drew on his drawings, but it was obscured (just as the entry in the neck was obscured by the tracheostomy) by the FBI (or someone's) removal of a portion for "tests."

The key thing here is Humes' acceptance of the lower hole, six inches down on the coat as corresponding "essentially with the point of entrance of the missile. . . ." But he then tells the Commission a colossal lie about the bullet penetrating the body and exiting the throat. He said what he had to say--not what he knew was entirely the truth--and instead withheld crucial facts.

Of the three possible scenarios in the first (now destroyed) autopsy report, a draft of which Humes only recently admitted burning along with his notes when he was interrogated by Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB, a third is that put forward by reporter George Barnum, evidently from his source at the autopsy, which is that the bullet striking low down on the head came out the neck. "It cannot be definitively known now, in 1996, which of the above conclusions were placed in the draft which was burned by Dr. Humes the weekend of 23-24 November, 1963. But it is highly likely that the draft was different in some way from what was produced in Step 2, the first smooth autopsy protocol, or it would not have been destroyed."

The first, smooth autopsy report sent to Burkley at the White House said only two shots hit Kennedy, and that the low occipital entry wound in the head exited the head, taking off a large chunk of the back of the skull, and no longer exited the throat. But sometime before December 11, it was necessary to make another major change, and that is, the bullet that struck him low down on the back had to exit the throat. They were told that there could only be three shots fired in the time available to the assassin, that one of the shots went down the street, missing entirely, and the Zapruder film shows Kennedy struck in the neck long before the head shot--something hundreds of people saw happen.

Soon after the assassination, the Zapruder film was viewed at the NPIC in Washington by CIA paid analysts, and they found that the President had been shot between 6-8 times from three directions, a bit more than the two shots we ended up with. In adding up all the missed shots and all the probable woundings of the three men, there were at least 6-8 shots fired. Dealey Plaza was a shooting gallery that day. One more huge signal that the case was fabricated comes from the hiding of so many shots.

Humes had to burn his first report which described the three shots, and reduced them to two in the report he had typed and turned in two days later, but that report said that the back wound bullet did not transit the body. Then, the Zapruder film is viewed again and again and it is clear that Kennedy is hit in the neck long before the head shot, so there is a third version of the autopsy report switched for the one finished on the 24th, and this one has the bullet transiting from the back out the throat, even though there was no real evidence for this. They claimed that a bruise on the top of the lung proved it, but organs are bruised when the body is subject to violent trauma.

They didn't need the Zapruder film to tell them that JFK was hit twice, because they'd have to kill Jackie Kennedy and many people to (shut them up) who saw JFK was hit long before the head shot.

Painfully, Doug Horne sorts his way through the swamp of documents and apparent deceit. He learns enough to propose that the three doctors be brought back and deposed once more ("Offer immunity if necessary") to try to get to the bottom of some of this, but as he was to learn in his attempt to go to Dallas with the autopsy pictures, getting too close to the truth was what sunk Icarus. Even in view of his own theory that there were two brain autopsies, Horne takes the view that these men were harmless and "the sequence of events laid out in the above hypothesis does not mandate a sinister motive by those who may have been involved in rewriting the autopsy protocol, and in some ways seems quite understandable if the events transpired in the sequence proposed above (i.e., honorable men caught in difficult circumstances doing the best they could under some pressure, who, along with their superiors, might have been terribly embarrassed after elementary review of a motion picture film revealed that their basic conclusions were untenable, given a 3-shot scenario)."

The emphasis by Horne is on the impact of the frames from the Zapruder film published by Life November 29, 1963, which he believes caused the autopsy report to be greatly changed for perhaps the third time, certainly before the 11th of December. It is my belief that the primary reason was to prepare the ground for the "magic bullet" theory. In other words, preparations to set the Official Story in place for all time limited the number of shots the gunman could have fired in a short time (three, which is how many empty shell casings were found in the sniper's nest) and therefore necessitated the passage of one of the bullets through Kennedy to hit Connally. This left one more bullet to the head, and one bullet down the street to slightly wound James Tague with debris. The official account and its authors, therefore, dictated to the doctors what they would say. Like schoolboys, they just had to keep writing until they got it right. No original thought here!

The finding of the bullet at Parkland in Dallas, CE 399, locked everyone into a shot in the back that fell out during the attempts to save him. Soon, that story was overboard and, by the way, as Connally had to get hit with it, so the bullet could be ballistically traced to Oswald's rifle. Inch by inch, discovery after discovery constructed the official story the conspirators had already pre-ordained.

As soon as the Secret Service had the final version of the autopsy report, the agent (Elmer Moore) in Dallas began propagandizing the doctors there in what they saw and did not see, and a news story went out on the wires that they had changed their tune. What they had seen in the President's throat was no longer an "entry" wound but a probable "exit" wound. Years later, the Secret Service man, Elmer Moore, who talked to Dr. Malcolm Perry and the others, was remorseful.

"The key to understanding how the FBI could issue its Summary Report with its non-transit findings is to understand that at the time the Sibert-O'Neill report (upon which the Summary Report medical findings were based) was written, it may very well have been in complete agreement with an earlier (i.e., non-transit) version of the autopsy protocol. . . Only when the revised autopsy protocol is transmitted to the FBI on 12/23/63 does the FBI look 'out of the loop,' or appear to be openly contradicting the autopsy protocol."

Horne says that we all have been misled by the undated autopsy report appearing to have been signed on 24 of November, 1963, and so the question is, how come the FBI issued a report in opposition to the autopsy report two weeks later?

Horne finds that there is a serious chain of custody problem with the original and seven copies of the protocol--transferred to the Kennedy family on 26 April, 1965, but which were not sent on to the Archives. "Based on the receipt trail in evidence today, that protocol and its seven copies, and all associated "paragraph 9" documents and biological materials literally have dropped out of sight. The transfer of an original autopsy protocol (CE 387) and other original documents from secret Service Chief Rowley to the National Archives on October 2, 1967, implies that the rewritten protocol (CE 387) and other documents were transferred directly to him (perhaps by Admiral Burkley), and that the original version of the (now missing) protocol was retained in the safe of SAIC Robert Bouck of the Secret Service until April 26, 1965." That too was probably destroyed in the "burn party" described by James K. Fox in my Killing the Truth (p. 277).

There is one more issue, as David Mantik points out: The holographic autopsy report prepared by Humes on the weekend of the assassination. It is not signed or dated. "Where does it fit into this morass?" Mantik asks. The extant copies of the holograph are missing the last page or so, and I personally find it hard to believe that any man wrote this. Each letter "i" for instance, has a small circle above it. It is my completely uneducated opinion that a woman wrote the report that is claimed to be Humes' early draft.

The autopsy report at first does not openly state that the throat is the place of exit for the shot in the back, but says that it "presumably" exited the throat. But at the end, the report forgets the presumption and states it as fact--a clear example of Orwellian Double Speak.

What we end up with is the probability that there were three autopsy reports with quite different scenarios. This is an example of science and medicine responding to political and military or federal coercion. The second autopsy report done by 24 November was likely signed only by Humes, and it maintained that the throat wound was made by a fragment from the low head shot (what happened to the bullet?) and that the bullet that struck Kennedy six inches down on his back probably fell out during medical procedures (external cardiac massage, as the FBI report put it) at Parkland. If Kennedy had his mid section wrapped or in a back brace that came up that high, it might explain why the bullet did not penetrate the chest.

"This protocol is likely signed only by Dr. Humes, per the Burkley inventory; however, even if the other two prosectors did not sign it, they would be aware of it, having all met on Sunday, November 24, at Bethesda to discuss it." This makes the other doctors criminally culpable in the conspiracy conducted at Bethesda. "Documents exist which show the Secret Service transmitting an original autopsy protocol to other entities on two separate occasions, a physical impossibility if there was only one official report."

Two Different Autopsy Face Sheets and Two Different Sets of Autopsy Drawings:

James Curtis Jenkins, to whom I gave a chapter in High Treason 2 (p. 225), said that he thought some of the writing was not the same, or not his on the autopsy face sheet, but the organ weights were his handwriting. It is unfortunate that I did not further clarify with him his meaning on some points, but the official investigators did worse. He has bitter memories of the HSCA investigators.

I think the answer is that someone doctored Boswell's drawing on the face sheet by writing in "missing" on the top of the head, and placed dimensions there which were false. There was no evidence that the top of the head was missing when the body arrived. The back of the head, yes. Jenkins told me about his interview with HSCA investigators: "The other thing that they told me was that there was a wound on the top of the head. I don't remember that. I could almost say that there was none."

The blood spattered face sheet does show a wound about six inches down on the President's back. This is controverted by the later autopsy report which gives measurements of 14 cm from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process. Horne writes that "A wound located where these measurements dictate does not match the dot placed on the diagram by Dr. Boswell which represents the entry wound in the back." Each piece of evidence show the back wound to be six inches down: (the holes in the coat and shirt; Clint Hill's statement ("I observed a wound six inches down from the neckline in the back") of 30 November, 1963; the autopsy face sheet drawing; Dr. Burkley's death certificate ("the level of the third thoracic vertebra"); and the statement of J. Lee Rankin to the Executive session of the WC. These are all controverted by later alterations of the record: The measurements from non-fixed body landmarks, the Rydberg drawings (CE 385, 386, 388) of March, 1964, made under Humes' direction, and the autopsy photographs of the back which were kept from the doctors themselves until the end of 1966.

As for the incredible Rydberg drawing published in the Warren Report which Humes directed, Kennedy's chin is almost on his chest (CE 388). This was the only way they could have a bullet enter the head near the hairline and maybe blow out some part of his skull, in this case the right parietal region, and originate from the sixth floor window. That might have worked at the time for those who saw the picture in the Warren Report, or it might have been a deliberate way to plant a question of impossibility in the public's mind when everyone was forced to lie during the aftermath of the violent overthrow of the Kennedy administration.

It was not good enough for history, which saw the probable continuing evolution of the evidence as photos and X-rays underwent further alteration and refinement, and materials were substituted in the National Archives and the in files of other government agencies. The entry wound in the skull was moved up four inches towards the cowlick area of the head. The back wound shows up near or in the neck, better able to come out the throat. The X-rays are so severely tampered with that no two doctors can come up with the same, let alone remotely close, interpretation. The Zapruder film is robbed of hundreds of frames and an entire movie of the first part of the motorcade as the limousine comes into the picture, and its scenes during the shooting are altered or missing. Retouching and outright forgery is obvious, and some method was used to speed up the scene because the limousine originally stopped after the shooting began, according to thirty witnesses. Yes, it was truly a shooting gallery in Dealey Plaza, and after that, the shooting continued as many people were forced to lie and say things that were not so.

Rankin: ". . . it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the back bone." That is not exactly above the shoulder blade where it ended up today.

Everything in the Zapruder film could not be changed. There was just too much in it to alter everything real fast. The Warren Commission pulled a fast one with Humes, the military doctor who knew Arlen Specter in Philadelphia so long before all of this (strange how tight some circles are). After Humes had the Rydberg drawings made and all the Commissioners saw the crazy drawing of Kennedy's head in profile with his chin almost on his chest, (CE 388), they then showed the Zapruder film to Humes. The drawing and mistaken assumptions behind it were the only way to get a slight upward trajectory through the head, and place the wound where it is in the autopsy report, though the entry into the skull was very low. The drawing was put it into the official record as evidence of something--a depiction of "scientific" findings.

It must have been odd sitting there looking at Kennedy awaiting the fatal head shot, his head bowed only slightly, not in the extreme as we see in the crazy drawing Humes and the government perpetrated on us and the world as "evidence." The intelligence of the world was insulted by this drawing.

CE 386, another of the three Rydberg drawings (a rear view) also showed the entry into the skull quite low down, as the autopsy report said, and showed an entry wound at the very side of the neck at the juncture with the shoulder. If Humes directed this picture, the bullet certainly did not transit the thorax or come anywhere near the lung. It simply passed through a muscle at that point, and could not correspond with the known bullet wound six inches down on the back--a ricochet evidently off the trunk.

With regard to the wording of Admiral Burkley's death certificate, which placed the back wound at the level of the "third thoracic vertebra," a considerable conflict with what we now have in the official autopsy report--the position was finally given the lie by former President Ford when he admitted that he himself changed the wording of the Warren Report with regard to that wound, thereby moving it upwards some six inches--Horne writes, ". . . it suggests that Dr. Burkley was quoting a different source document (i.e., a different protocol) than exists today." Ford originally damn well knew the wound was 6" down on the back.

Of course, Dr. Burkley may and probably did have personal knowledge of the wound or saw it himself. There are two more factors here which Horne overlooked which back his thesis: 1) the fact that the official autopsy report does not use fixed landmarks on the body to locate the back wound as forensic medical procedure require, but instead uses more distant landmarks such as the right mastoid process on the skull--is in itself evidence of suspicious and deceitful intent on the part of the doctors; and 2) The admission of President Ford that when he was a Congressman on the Warren Commission he moved the position of the wound nearly six inches. Ford's admission came almost a year after Horne reasoned through the two autopsy report conflict, and so this information was unavailable to him.

Burkley wrote the death certificate on November 23, the day before a "final" copy of the autopsy report was typed and ostensibly signed. He may have already known what was in the first version of the report. It has been my belief all along, probably stated in a previous book, that pages must have been substituted in the first report which did in fact have the three doctor's signatures on it, to make up what we have now. Horne has a slightly different theory based on his better access to information than all of us poor researchers, and that is they simply rewrote the report, typed it again, and this time three doctors signed it instead of one. He assumed from circumstantial evidence that only Humes had signed the first report.

"Dr. Burkley could very well have sighted (or discussed) such a draft on Saturday, November 23, 1963, and have been quoting its findings in his White House Death Certificate. (Captain Canada did look at it on the 23rd. Since Dr. Burkley was present at the autopsy {acting as an intermediary between the Kennedy family and the pathologists}, and since he had been President Kennedy's military physician, it seems certain that he in particular, and not just Captain Canada, would have seen the protocol in draft form.) In summary, the unique wording (contrary to CE 387) used by Dr. Burkley to describe the President's back wound could be evidence of an earlier (and suppressed) version of the autopsy protocol."

To maintain a tightly compartmentalized operation, they would have used a different typist for the missing report, and might not have used Elsie Closson twice. Whether the ARRB got around to double checking with her in a second interview, I don't know. Of course, they could have simply asked her to retype it because of a mistake, but she'd remember that--at least for awhile.

Therefore, the conflicts in the documents cannot be resolved. Doug Horne wrote the following in a memorandum for the file: "If records exist which indicate that RFK returned the original autopsy protocol to Chief Rowley prior to October 2, 1967, then the autopsy protocol in the Archives today is almost certainly the same document signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck on November 24, 1963. If, however, there is no evidence that Robert Kennedy returned the original autopsy protocol to the Secret Service, or that the Burkley inventory was incorrect, then the pedigree and integrity of the document in the Archives today will unavoidably remain in question. Since the original autopsy protocol now in the Archives appears to match in all respects CE 387 (which was published in the Warren Report in September, 1964), it seems highly likely that Robert Kennedy simply passed the document back to Chief Rowley for transmission to the Archives. If, however, the document transmitted by Chief Rowley to the Archives on October 2, 1967, is verified to have been continuously in the possession of the Secret Service, then the Burkley inventory may constitute de facto evidence of another (earlier?) version of the autopsy protocol which was destroyed or rendered inaccessible along with other 'paragraph 9' materials."

But by whom? The Kennedy family, had they known about it, certainly would have wanted a copy of the second of three different reports. But it is unlikely or impossible that they ever had it, and it is ridiculous that RFK would have given the report to Rowley to give to the Archives, rather than passing it directly, as he did everything else.

The bottom line is this: the wound in the back was originally 6" down on the back, and did not perforate the thorax. No damage was seen by anyone to the top of the head, or even from the right side, so we have two different views of that wound after the body arrived in Maryland. I continue to doubt there was any such damage after we have seen the drawings made by those who were present at the autopsy, other than Boswell's drawing which I now believe to be altered. The point is, the head wounds, along with everything else, were falsified in the documentation and the doctors played a rôle in that either wittingly or unwittingly. The documents were altered or switched.

 

TWO CONFLICTING OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE ASSASSINATION

This means that the FBI summary report of December 9, 1963, was in conflict with the politically motivated Warren Report. Which was correct, or was either?

 

TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SHOOTING BETWEEN EYEWITNESSES AND THE OFFICIAL STORY

Very many people insisted that shots came from the Grassy Knoll, and many people can be seen in the films running to the west end of the Knoll, just after the shooting, where the wooden fence met the cement balustrade of the triple underpass. The trajectories of the fatal head shot and body matter coming from in front described a straight line from the storm drain at that point to Kennedy's head and the motorcycle policeman directly on that line, on the left rear fender of the car just behind.

In addition, many witnesses volunteered that the limousine stopped during the shooting. We see the driver turned completely around for several seconds after Kennedy was first hit. Then he turns forward once and then quickly looks back again. Then he turns forward and steps on the accelerator only after JFK has his head blown apart. There are two complete turn arounds by the driver. Think about that. Greer is supposed to be driving the car while he's turned around for a period of time staring at the President who is already hit. Can you or would you drive like that during shooting?

 

TWO DIFFERENT FILMED VERSIONS OF THE ASSASSINATION

The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films. For instance, Clint Hill testified that he ran after the limousine after the shots began, and catching hold of the handle on the rear of the car, he crawled on his knees onto the trunk and placed his arms around Jacqueline Kennedy, who had crawled out on the trunk presumably to retrieve a portion of her husband's head, he placed her in the back seat. This is what we see in the Nix film.

He stated that he saw the back of the president's head lying in the back seat. "The right rear portion of his head was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. . . There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill also states that before he reached the car after the fatal head shot, "Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned to me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there. . . ."

We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand. At the moment their fingers seem to almost touch, Mrs. Kennedy turns and gets back into her seat without his help. One can only conclude that the film was altered before Hill testified in 1964. Others might think that Hill is mistaken, but not when the films show entirely different scenes. Again, the weight of evidence takes into account the pattern in all of the instances of conflict we describe here.*

There may actually be more films in conflict with the ones we have seen at this point. The film taken by Beverly Oliver, as yet not seen by anyone outside the government, may show entirely different events. This film was used by the FBI to reconstruct the crime in their headquarters in Washington. Readers are referred to the exposition of the facts from the FBI report and exhibit in my Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, starting on page 62 and 70.

Many people insisted that the limousine stopped or slowed way down. This is not what we see in the film.

 

TWO (or more) MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHERS

Robert Knudsen, a retired Navy Chief, was the principal White House photographer when JFK died. He testified to the HSCA in 1978 and told his wife and family on numerous occasions that he took pictures of the President's body.** He described these as "autopsy pictures."

We know that he accompanied Secret Service photo man James K. Fox to Anacostia Naval base more than once to have autopsy photos processed and developed. We have the testimony of Saundra Kay Spencer that Knudsen was there with Fox and that she received film from them.***

Yet, officially, the photographer at the autopsy was not Knudsen but was John Thomas Stringer, a civilian employed by the Navy.

 

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS

The photos of Kennedy's body and wounds in the National Archives do not correspond to those which were taken, nor do they correspond to the wounds recorded in the autopsy report or seen by any of the Dallas and Bethesda witnesses. This is the subject of four of my books.

The official photographer at the autopsy, John Thomas Stringer, taught photography to many students over the years, and he insists that each photo had identifying data in the picture, as would seem reasonable to anyone familiar with an autopsy. Yet, none of the photos have such an identifying number.

This might indicate that someone else took the photos that we now have, or that the photos are composites.

 

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF BRAIN PHOTOS--TWO DIFFERENT BRAINS and TWO DIFFERENT BRAIN EXAMINATIONS

The "Two Brain Story" finally began to break when Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press fielded an article on the night of November 9, 1998, which was followed closely with a story by my friend from HSCA days, George Lardner Jr., son of the famous fiction writer, Ring Lardner. I had been steadily working on these two denizens of the press for some time, having many long talks with Richard Pyle, also a friend, of the A.P. in New York, who had attended some of my press conferences years before, and he routed me to his compatriots in Washington.

John Thomas Stringer insisted to the ARRB investigators that none of the National Archives photos of the brain are his, nor are they of JFK's brain which he saw on two occasions: at the autopsy and at a supplemental brain exam only two or three days later (the day is not certain, but was probably on 25 November, the day JFK was buried). He told me just before that deposition that none of the photos of the body currently known, and which he has seen in various publications and which are identical to what is in the National Archives, are those that he took and that they are at variance with the body he saw. He did not have the courage to go that far when he testified to the Board in 1997.

FBI man Francis X. O'Neill, who was present at the autopsy, told the ARRB that "there was not too much of the brain left. . . More than half of the brain was missing." O'Niell was in consternation at the photos now in evidence. "This looks almost like a complete brain."

Stringer testified that he never took basilar views (photos from underneath the brain, but the photos presently in the Archives have such underneath views. He also felt that the photos were not his because they seemed to be on a "different type of film." By this he meant Ansco rather than Kodak.

Stringer insisted that the brain had been sectioned, something denied in the supplemental Autopsy Report dated two weeks after he took pictures of the section laid out on a light table. Neither the sections or the photos he says he took are in evidence, except for the possibility they are in the basement museum at Walter Reed in a jar of preservative (this was not fully investigated by the ARRB), as has been described in other evidence. Admiral Burkley, the President's personal physician, said that he was responsible for saving the brain. People were given the impression that it was either buried with the President in the first interment, or that it was in the stainless steel pail at the Archives which later disappeared. Investigation by the HSCA indicated that the brain was not buried with JFK in either the first or second interment. It is, of course, possible that the HSCA's evidence is weak.

We have a lengthening list of photos and X-rays from the autopsy which the doctors and photographers insist were taken which are long missing from the Archives.

There are four different dates connected with the supplementary examination of the brain. These are from sometime after the autopsy and when the brain was fixed in formalin solution. The actual date of the report for the supplemental examination is written by hand as 6 December 1963--some two weeks after the assassination. The date seems unlikely and the following information may give a clue why the date conflicts with circumstantial evidence of a previous brain exam with somewhat different medical personal and photographers, not to speak of an entirely different brain. But, as Doug Horne maintains in his "Two Brain Memorandum," he thinks that the handwritten date is only the date of transmittal to Admiral Burkley of the supplemental report, not the date of the examination itself, which apparently many researchers thought was the case.

But when was the exam? It is greatly suspicious--even preposterous--that the report does not give a date for the examination itself. If there was a date on the report, and if there were two different audiences for two different brains and their "examinations," one of those witnesses might notice the conflict and start screaming about it. Of course, you cannot have too many suspicious deaths in Washington that close to a political assassination. Out on the ranch, it's another story.

George Lardner of the Washington Post wrote his own story on 10 November, 1998 and said it this way:

"Doctors who conducted the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy may have performed two brain examinations in the days following his assassination, possibly of two different brains, a staff report for the Assassination Records Review Board said."

"The central contention is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on November 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded."

Dr. Pierre Finck, the Army pathologist brought in for his expertise in forensics--an essential quality the other autopsy doctors lacked, wrote a report to his commanding officer in 1965 that Dr. Humes called him on 29 November, 1963, to "examine the brain." This date is of course, after Stringer's certain recollection that he had photographed the brain.

Present at this second examination were Drs. Humes and Boswell. "A U.S. Navy photographer was present," Finck wrote. Stringer worked for the Navy but was a civilian. Robert Knudsen was a retired navy Chief Warrant Officer. Possibly Knudsen was there, but I think it was someone else. Finck wrote that the photographer took photos of the brain from underneath ("basilar" views) and this Stringer denies that he ever did (see chapter on the "Stunning Findings" of the ARRB). We have basilar photographs now in evidence of the brain.

The recollections of Chief Petty Officer Chester H. Boyers indicate that the second brain examination occurred as late as 2 December, 1963**** (keep in mind that the report of this is dated the 6th of December). Boyers told the HSCA in 1978 that he processed brain tissue and prepared paraffin blocks "of eight or 12 sections of the brain" on 2 December. Boyers told Mark Flanagan of the HSCA that on December 2, he prepared "six blocks (of paraffin) from eight or twelve sections from the brain." This sounds like the brain was in fact sectioned, and that it was done long after the body had been buried. Surely, the doctors gave him tissue from the brain soon after a brain exam, even if it was not the first exam. We might say that this corroborates Finck's statement that he attended a brain exam sometime after the call from Dr. Humes on 29 November. (Boyers also prepared tissue slides and paraffin blocks from the body on November 22, which is corroborated by the testimony of Drs. Boswell and Karnei.) Horne believes that Boyers is totally credible, and "and that there is no reason to believe he erred in regard to stating that he processed brain tissue on December 2, 1963. In fact, Boyer's statement that he processed tissue on December 2, 1963 may indicate that the supplemental brain examination took place on that date, namely, Monday, December 2, 1963." Dr. Finck failed to write down the exact date of the exam he attended other than to say that Humes called him on November 29 and asked him to attend the examination. The second brain examination took place sometime between 29 November and 2 December.

Dr. Pierre Finck, in his letter to his commander, General Joseph Blumberg, said that he had wanted to take a representative of the neuropathology branch from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) for the (second) brain examination, but that Dr. Humes told him that no one else would be admitted. I take this for another suspicious event.

Finck also wrote his 1965 report from notes he evidently reconstructed after he found his original notes missing. Finck complained to his colleagues hours after the autopsy that his notes of the autopsy had been taken by someone--he did not know who.

Doug Horne marshalled the evidence in his "Two Brain Memorandum," as it has come to be known, on 28 August, 1996. Horne maintains that the two exams were about a week apart. It is greatly unfortunate for the indications that evidence tampering (one brain switched for another) immediately became conflated with the body alteration theory.

Horne wrote in this document, "Corroborating evidence in support of the hypothesis that there were examinations of two different brains about one week apart, each of which was represented to its audience as 'the brain of President Kennedy,' has accumulated . . . ."

David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has seen the photographs of the brain in the National Archives, and he told me in 1994 that the seven photos do not match the description at all: "There is an obvious parisagital laceration. Is Boswell describing different brains on these two occasions?" Mantik, you see, was onto the same thing that I was, but from a different direction because he had knowledge of all of the extant brain photos, as well as the X-rays, and I did not. At the same time, the drawing of the brain published by the HSCA troubled many. There was too much brain. Mantik's optical density measurements were also radically in disagreement with the brain photos. These O.D. measurements permitted him to estimate the volume of the brain--which was remarkably less than that seen in the photos.

Mantik was responding to my quote of Boswell saying that the brain was so torn up that it would not have shown a bullet track. I wrote "The significance of this statement is that it indicates that the brain examination may have in fact been fabricated." I didn't have the rest of it quite right, but I was very close, assuming Horne is correct. He did have, however, more power than I, as the ARRB was able to subpoena witnesses we were unable to talk to beforehand, such as the doctors.

Yet Chester Boyers said that the sections of the brain he had quite clearly showed a bullet track, so if Boswell was disagreeing with him on that score, then the brain that Humes and Boswell photographed more than a week later was not Kennedy's brain.

HSCA interviewers said that Dr. Boswell told them that those present for the brain examination two or three days after the autopsy were Humes, Dr. Karnei, HMC Mason, and a couple of technicians. In this same interview he said that he was unsure whether the brain had been serially sectioned or not and said that the records would say one way or another! (p. 5). Boswell does not name a photographer as being present, interestingly.

Dr. Boswell denied to a Washington Post reporter that the brain had been sectioned and said that it had already been destroyed so much that they had not wanted to section it, just as the autopsy report states. "He's full of shit!" Boswell told the Post reporter of Stringer.

Stringer described the brain examination as happening two or three days after the autopsy and said that Humes and Boswell were present. Andrew Purdy of the HSCA recorded that Stringer said the brain was sectioned (p. 13), but on page 15, Stringer said they did not section it serially but only cut some pieces from it. It seems few have their story straight. Stringer was emphatic in these interviews that Finck was not present for the brain exam that he attended. Stringer, of course, did not know about a later brain exam which Finck attended and wrote about. More later.

We come to one more suspicious act of Dr. George Burkley, if we can believe Humes. Humes stated in his joint interview with Dr. Boswell for JAMA's May 27, 1992, issue that Dr. Burkley "told me that the family wanted to inter the brain with the President's body." That meant that they had to finish the brain exam before the body left the Capitol Rotunda and went to its grave in a very public funeral procession. This was not the final grave, as Doug Horne mistakenly indicated in his memo, but nevertheless, it is completely unlikely that the brain went into the coffin at any time that week, since we have another brain examination a few days after the first burial. JAMA, along with their many other dismal failures in that historic piece of fluff, (which resulted in a huge law suit from Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Dallas doctors whom they had to pay off) failed to ask Dr. Humes just exactly when the brain was in fact examined. The list of key unasked questions was very long.

JAMA's press conference got me on Dan Rather's evening news at CBS and every other network later that night when I crashed their press conference to denounce the article as "cooked."

It would seem, from what we know now, that many of JAMA's quotes were invented. Some editor might have inserted them. I have the experience of people inserting in my books things I never wrote, and many authors have had this experience. But then JAMA is not a newspaper and we weren't being given one of their normal scientific reports when they interviewed the autopsy doctors and cooked their articles. At least that is the word ("cooked") I used on Dan Rather's CBS evening news that night in May, 1992!

On page 11 of the above HSCA interview Boswell again said Dr. Karnei was present for the supplementary brain exam. Karnei denies it. I know Karnei and he knows Boswell. He thinks Boswell is withholding information and is vulnerable.

I think I have talked to Stringer enough over the years to believe that he would not have made up such a story and could not have confused such an event as photographing sections of JFK's brain with anyone else's. I can't say that I am friendly with him or that interviewing him has been a piece of cake, either.

Humes seems to be trying to clarifying the issue of taking sections from the brain when he tells Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB that sections were not taken "at that time. . . we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. . . but we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it." Maybe Humes meant that they did not take sections at the time of the autopsy. He wrote in the supplemental brain examination report that they took no "coronal sections" at all.

What is missing from the above? Does Gunn question Humes about what he meant when he said that sections were not taken "at that time"? Does he mean at the autopsy? Or does he mean at the brain exam, and then seems to refer to a second brain exam when they took sections "A day or two later"? No, we do not get that pinned down. How can sections be taken after the burial if he gave the brain to Burkley on November 25 to go in the grave that day? It's all a lie, you see.

The following is very important because an attempt is made to pin down when the brain exam was performed, and it certainly sounds like it happened after the body was put in the ground at Arlington that Monday, November 25th.

"Did that (brain exam mentioned on page 108) happen within one or two days after (the autopsy)"? "Yes. Shortly after. I can't tell you what day now."

"Are you able to connect in time the difference in time between the time that you delivered the autopsy protocol to Admiral Burkley and the time that you examined the brain?" ". . . a couple of days, two or three days. I don't know exactly how long." "Was that a couple of days after the November 22nd autopsy?" "A couple of days after Sunday, after they were delivered." Meaning, after the body went in the ground on Monday.

It is pretty much agreed that Humes' autopsy report was typed on Sunday and given to Burkley, so anytime perhaps before noon the following day would be too late to place the brain in the coffin, so according to this testimony, backed up with other sources, the second brain exam happened after burial of the body.

Doug Horne's analysis of the timing of the earliest of two possible brain exams, based on statements made by Admiral Galloway's secretary as to when she typed the brain report, puts the outside limit for the first exam as Tuesday (the day after burial) and that Closson typed the brain exam report on Wednesday.

Another factor is the time needed for fixation of the brain, which takes longer than two or three days, normally, but there were special circumstances operating here. This was a president. The central question we are trying to cope with is whether the brain was fully examined and sections taken at the brain exam prior to the body's burial. Was there a second brain exam with a different brain after this?

Humes told the ARRB (and JAMA in 1992) that Robert Kennedy told Admiral Burkley that Robert Kennedy intended to inter the brain with the President's body. For this, we have to take both Humes' word and that of Burkley that RFK said that. It seems likely that the family would want to bury the brain with the body. But why not the rest of the organs and anything else taken from the body? Horne finds that the above indicates that there would have had to be a brain exam on Monday morning before the body was buried. Keep in mind that an investigation by the HSCA in 1977-8 found that the brain was not interred with the body.

Dr. Boswell backs up the Monday exam, after which the brain was put back in the bucket full of formalin and it was "delivered to Admiral Burkley in a bucket" along with the paraffin blocks and tissue slides. This almost works, except that these same materials are listed in an inventory of what was ultimately handed over by Evelyn Lincoln to the National Archives some years later. All during that time, a stainless steel bucket just large enough for a brain, loaded with something called "gross material"--undoubtedly meaning, the brain, sat in the Archives for some years.

So if Burkley did not put the material in the coffin, then it never was buried, leaving us with a charade some of the doctors participated in. Again, the most culpable seems to be Burkley, but it gets worse. They didn't dare put the brain in the coffin because it contained evidence of a shot from in front. The family had to be tricked. There had to be another brain prepared from some other victim, photographed and reported on. The second brain must then be lost and certainly not put into the coffin at a later date during the reinterment. In addition, if someone then knew about the possibility of DNA testing in the future, they would not want the brain saved.

Boswell agrees that the brain was not serially sectioned at the autopsy, but that "partial sections" were taken during the brain exam. He said that about fifteen people were present for this and that Dr. Finck was probably not there (Stringer also felt that Finck was not there). Boswell said that photographer John Stringer, Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei, and AFIP neuropathologist Richard Davis were present. Keep in mind this later claim, because Finck quotes Humes as saying that they would not accept anyone else from AFIP. Both Davis and Karnei denied to the ARRB that they were present, and there is no corroboration for HMC Mason.

Stringer states positively that the brain exam was three or four days after the autopsy, but he is not clear that it was or was not on the day of the funeral. He thinks it was before the funeral. He seems adamant that it was not on the day of the funeral but he is probably mistaken as he says the exam was on a workday and in the morning, so it could have been the morning of the funeral (Monday, normally a work day), which Stringer watched on TV that afternoon. Stringer clearly describes cross sections ("to show the damage") being made of the brain at that time, and not small pieces. Some sections are documented in testimony to be at the AFIP museum at Walter Reed.

Stringer describes a fist shaped piece of the brain missing, and he clearly remembers the brain being weighed. This weighing, according to normal procedure, was before infusion with formalin, so the abnormal weight we now have of 1500 grams (more than a normal male brain) is false for this additional reason.

Stringer then insists that he did not take the brain photos that he was shown at the National Archives: "No, I couldn't say that they were President Kennedy's. I mean, there's no identification." In the same exchange with Jeremy Gunn, Stringer says the film is different and different film holders were used (see that section below).

"Is there any question in your mind whether you were the photographer of these images that are before you right now?" "Yes, if it's Ansco film, and if it's a film pack. I have no recollection of using a film pack." "Do you see any identification markers or identification numbers on the photographs?" "No." Stringer goes on to say that the photos he took of the sections of the brain are missing.

Then, shockingly, Stringer explains why Finck was not present at what he thought was the only brain exam, as Doug Horne explains in an ARRB government report: "I asked him, as a follow-up question, whether Dr. Finck was at the supplemental brain exam. He replied that Dr. Finck had not been there, and followed by saying that it was his opinion that Dr. Finck's presence was not desired at the supplemental brain examination, and opined that Dr. Finck 'knew too much,' and had 'caused a lot of trouble at the autopsy.' It was the sense of one observer, based upon Mr. Stringer's facial expression and body language, and the context of the day's events, that Dr. Finck's precise and exacting professional demeanor and expert qualification as a wound ballistics expert may have made Dr. Humes, as lead pathologist for President Kennedy's autopsy, feel uncomfortable and somewhat insecure."

Horne concludes that the brain was put into the coffin the day of the funeral, after the crowds and TV cameras left. This is bullshit because Burkley still had it. At least so he thought. We don't actually know which brain he ended up with.

The Second Brain Exam

The second (apparent) exam occurred sometime between November 29 (Friday) and December 2--(Monday). The first evidence of this is Dr. Pierre Finck's report to his commander, General Joseph Blumberg. "CDR Humes called me on 29 November, 1963, that the three prosectors would examine the brain at the Naval Hospital. I asked if a representative of the Neuropathological Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would be invited to the gross examination of the brain. Humes told me that no additional persons would be admitted. Humes, Boswell and myself examined the formalin fixed brain. A U.S. Navy photographer was present." We still don't know the date of the exam, but it could have been later than the 29th. That is considerably after the funeral on the 25th.

Doug Horne writes in his Memo for the file of the ARRB, a paper he worked on from August 28 or before, 1996, to June 2, 1998: "If true, Dr. Finck's account of a brain exam separate and distinct from the first one, in the company of Drs. Humes and Boswell, would mean that Drs. Humes and Boswell were present at two different brain examinations, and that they have intentionally tried to obscure this fact from all official parties to whom they have spoken or testified about this matter over the past 33 years."

A November 29th exam with Finck means that Finck would have been shown JFK's brain only if they could trust him, so why wasn't he at the November 24-25th exam? They staged the second brain exam to show him somebody else's brain--one that showed only a shot from behind (one wonders how many people they had to have the Chinese or Argentineans kill before they got it right) just to be sure he didn't get a good look at JFK's brain that showed a shot from front as well.

I previously quoted in one of my books (also quoted by Horne), Finck's writing: "The convolutions of the brain are flat and the sulci are narrow, but this is interpreted as a fixation artefact because the change was not observed at the time of the autopsy." It could have been an old brain. Horne comments: "It is clear from the above passage that the brain examined by Dr. Finck on or after November 29, 1963 did not look the same as the brain he examined at the autopsy on November 22, 1963." It was either another brain, or, in fact, changed in some strange way.

Dr. Karnei told the ARRB that the brain was carefully inspected outside the body during the autopsy by all three prosectors.

Finck also wrote: "Color and black and white photographs are taken by the U.S. Navy photographer: superior and inferior aspects of the brain. CDR Humes takes sections. . . but does not make coronal sections in order to preserve the specimen." So, who was the photographer?

Stringer took black and white photos of a different type and format from what we now have, and denies having taken inferior or basilar views of the brain. Finck wrote in his report to General Blumberg that "Color and black and white photographs are taken by the U.S. Navy photographer: superior and inferior aspects of the brain. CDR Humes takes sections. . . but does not make coronal sections in order to preserve the specimen." Finck's 1965 report corroborates the basilar (inferior) photos in the Archives, but Stringer did not take these. Horne comments: "This Finck recollection of witnessing a photographer shoot inferior views of the brain, therefore corroborates that he was at a different examination than was John Stringer; and Stringer's conclusion that the black and white brain photographs in the collection today (Ansco super high pan film, shot with a film pack) are inconsistent with the type (portrait pan B & W) and format (duplex holders) of the black and white film he shot at the brain exam he attended, along with the presence in the Archives of photographs of inferior (basilar) views of a brain, together corroborate that the brain photos presently in the Archives were probably taken at this second examination witnessed by Dr. Pierre Finck."

Stringer remembers serial sections being made, but Finck says none were made.

Finck, therefore, corroborates the conclusion that he was not at the same exam as Stringer. Horne: "This also implies that Drs. Humes and Boswell, in their apparent concealment of the fact that there were two different brain examinations, are concealing primarily the fact that the brain was sectioned, and that photographs were taken of those coronal or serial sections on a light box." This is "show and tell" and was of course staged in an elaborate shell game conducted by Dr. Humes, if the analysis is correct.

This is not the primary thing they were concealing. The brain was switched and they knew about it. The brain was switched to conceal the direction from which the bullets came. Also, they were covering their tracks because the brain never made it into the coffin on November 25th, as we'll see.

However, they didn't need any of the doctors present to photograph some stranger's brain and slip it into the evidence later. They had plenty of bodies cycling through Bethesda or elsewhere, after all. They didn't have to obtain a brain from Bethesda, though. Any place would do.

Tom Robinson, one of the men from Gawler's funeral home, told the ARRB, (and me), that a "fist sized" portion of the brain was missing in the back, along with both scalp and skull. Parkland witnesses said this, and so did some of those at the autopsy as well as being recorded in the autopsy report. The truth of the missing posterior brain "provides a possible motive for orchestrating a second brain examination: if the absence of large amounts of posterior brain tissue, and the sectioning that surely would have documented that damage in great and irrefutable detail, was considered knowledge which had to be suppressed, an examination of a second (different) brain (exhibiting a 'more acceptable' pattern of damage), with photographs to record a different pattern of damage (such as those now in the Archives), would be necessary."

Previously, I quoted former FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill saying the following to the ARRB, and the information is vastly important. O'Neill demonstrated that the right posterior part of the brain was missing, and that it was as much as half the brain or more. Of course we have a nearly whole brain recorded in the evidence now. O'Neill was asked "When the brain is removed, do you. . . what happened with the brain itself?" "They measured it. They weighed it. And then they put it into a jar." This clears up another question. Could the weight of the brain change after it was fixed in formalin enough to account for a 1500 gram brain--more than a normal male brain? The brain was weighed before it was fixed, and as I have written often, if half of it was missing, it could not have weighed more than 700 grams.

O'Neill is asked if he can identify the brain in the present photos in the National Archives as looking anything like what JFK's brain looked like at the autopsy, and he responds that there is far too much brain present to be his. He says that there was more brain on the jackets of Kellerman and Greer, the Secret Service man and driver in the front seat of the limousine, than is missing from the brain depicted in the photographs. "This looks almost like a complete brain. Or am I wrong in saying that? I don't know."

Horne finds

". . . indices which collectively point to a carefully controlled, compartmented operation in regard to orchestrating who was present, and what procedures were performed at the two separate brain examinations. Under this hypothesis, the purpose of including Dr. Finck at the second brain examination would have been to legitimize that procedure in the eyes of history, and would also have permitted the creation of both photographs, and an official witness, to record the fact that the 'brain of record' (from the 'late' exam) was not sectioned. The September, 1997, testimony of former FBI Special Agent Frank O'Neill at his ARRB deposition verified rather conclusively that just such an event took place (other autopsy witness deposed by the ARRB in the fall of 1997 testified that they could not recall seeing a brain removed at the autopsy, and could not recall viewing a brain outside the body)--that a brain markedly different in appearance from President Kennedy's brain at the time of autopsy was, at some point, photographed. O'Neill's testimony corroborates Stringer's testimony that he (Stringer) did not take the brain photographs that reside in the Archives collection, and corroborates Dr. Finck's written statement in the Blumberg report that the brain looked different in appearance at the supplemental exam than it did at autopsy. Exactly why the decision may have been made to conduct the examination of a second brain remains unknown; however, the author has always found it curious that Dr. Pierre Finck was present at neither the first hypothesized brain examination, nor at NNMC Bethesda on Saturday, November 23, 1963, when Humes and Boswell read the tissue slides and examined an early draft of the autopsy report.

"In retrospect, the handwritten date (of 12/6/63) in the upper right-hand corner of the supplemental autopsy report may intentionally have been affixed to that document to give the impression that the President's brain was examined well after the November 22, 1963 autopsy, and close-to, or on, the date scribed onto the supplemental report by hand. . . it seems likely that the handwritten date of 12/6/63 cannot represent either the date that the hypothesized 'early' brain exam was performed, or the date the corresponding report for the 'early' exam was prepared. The key to explaining this may very well be the apparent condition of the brain depicted by the photographs in the Archives--that brain, according to numerous medical professionals who have examined the photographs, is a very well fixed brain. . . . "

Horne notes in this memo that the brain

"seems to most observers to represent a brain as it would appear after at least 10-14 days of fixation. A supplemental autopsy report believed by its readers to have been written on 12/6/63 would be consistent with a brain which appears this well-fixed in photographs; similarly, it would be very difficult to successfully represent these photographs as depicting a brain examined after only two-and-one-half days of fixation." (p. 25).

Even though Humes, Boswell, and Stringer testified to the ARRB that the brain exam was about three days after the autopsy, this is not the impression given by Humes to the Warren Commission and to his friend, Arlen Specter. Humes is completely vague about when it happened, but seems to imply that it took quite awhile for the brain to be fixed in the solution so they could work with it. The "supplementary report . . . was prepared some days after the examination.

Horne writes:

"Finally, Humes' testimony that he and Boswell examined the brain together with Finck (in light of the date markers of November 29, 1963 provided by Finck, and of December 2, 1963 provided by Boyers) confirms to the author, in view of what is now known as a result of HSCA and ARRB clarification efforts, that Dr. Humes was trying to 'sell' a late brain examination (rather than an early one) to the Warren Commission. . . . The author believes, moreover, that Humes had no choice but to characterize a 'late' brain exam to the Warren Commission (i.e., his use of the phrase 'some days' after the autopsy, and by calling the time interval a 'delay')--that is, to describe the timing of the second event, rather than the first event--since Dr. Finck was present in the same room when he testified on March 61, 1964. . . It may well be, in the context of this hypothesis, that with the passage of years, Drs. Humes and Boswell, the two individuals who seem to have been present at both brain examinations, may have become careless about which memories they selectively recall during questioning." (p. 26)

What we end up with is a view of a compartmentalized, controlled event with different participants except for Humes and Boswell being present for both. They, therefore, knew the truth.

Horne notes in his "Two Brain Memo" that in the inventory and receipt (for autopsy material, photographs, X-rays transferred from Vice Admiral Burkley and the Secret Service to Mrs. Evelyn Lincoln at the National Archives on 26 April, 1965), there are two receipts on the list, one from Lt. Vincent Madonia to James K. Fox, and another from Fox to Robert Bouck of the Secret Service's Protective Research Division. Interestingly, both receipts are made out on the same date, November 29, 1963, the day that Humes called Finck to come over and attend a brain examination. So there could have been a second brain examination on that date without contradicting the chain of evidence for the movement of materials on that date. If the second brain exam happened a few days later, there would be a problem.

Burkley wrote a note to Andy Purdy at the House Assassinations Committee which was received on or about December 4, 1978, which said that "Had the Warren Commission deigned to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated." Burkley made an affidavit for the HSCA which stated that "There was no difference in the nature of the wound I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital." Certainly the drawings made by so many (except Boswell) back this up. "I remained with the President's body in the treatment room until the body was placed in the coffin and I saw it closed. . . I traveled from the hospital to Air force One in the ambulance with the President's body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way." He then tells us that he is responsible for the autopsy having been complete, not partial: "I had ordered the United States Naval Hospital to be prepared for performing an autopsy on the body of John F. Kennedy. . . the permission having been granted by Mrs. Kennedy while en route. It was to be a complete autopsy with no limitations and no curtailment in time necessary for completion. . . I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets. . . . The notation under Item # 9, one stainless steel container, 7" in diameter x 8", containing gross material, represents the container of the brain."

Andy Purdy of the HSCA had spoken with Burkley in August, 1977, and in a report which dealt with a number of witnesses dated August 17, 1977, said that "the doctors didn't section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. Dr. Burkley thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two. Says he was responsible for saving the brain after it was fixed in formalin. Burkley decided to keep the brain rather than put it back in the body, as Dr. Humes wanted to do. . . He was particularly interested in examining the normal portions because he thought the President was of exceptional intelligence and that this might be reflected in the extra development of the brain."

For those who think that the brain somehow got back into the grave, this must give them pause, along with the investigation conducted by the HSCA which proved that the brain was not put back with the body during the reinterment.

But Burkley remains a major puzzle in the case. Evidence is strong that at least some of the brain was in the museum at the AFIP at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington. But whose brain? Certainly DNA tests should be conducted now. That is, if we can first locate the specimens.

Burkley, I believe, is responsible for the body ending up at Bethesda--I'm sure with a gentle suggestion to Jacqueline on the plane. He also says that he was the one who controlled the autopsy and that it was complete, as in my judgement, it was except for dissecting the neck. But if so, he was responsible for the brain not being sectioned, which should have told us if there were two bullets. It is greatly unfortunate that the oral history Burkley made asked no questions or elicited no information about the wounds or much about the assassination. It is very suspicious that they did not talk about it.

CONCLUSION: TWO DIFFERENT BRAINS

The autopsy report lists the brain as weighing 1500 grams, considerably more than an average male brain. Since at least one third of the brain was known to be lost at the time of the fatal head shot, the brain examined cannot be JFK's. Readers are directed to read my exposition of this in Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, beginning on page 265. On page 267, I put forward the thesis that the brain was switched. This is not the same thing as "altering" the body, but it certainly is tampering with the evidence, as I have felt the body itself may have been tampered with for the purposes of retrieving a bullet.

Those who have sought to take credit for a supposed vindication of the body alteration thesis are wrong. The evidence that there were two different brains and two separate examinations of them implicate the doctors in deceit, though I'm sure they were forced or tricked to do it. Dr. Finck and John Thomas Stringer, the photographer, were excluded from the second examination of a brain--if it happened--which was entirely different from the one that arrived in the body. If this scenario is established as fact, it proves that no one put another brain into the body sometime before it arrived at Bethesda. The brain was simply switched for another at the second brain examination. It then disappeared, because tests, if ever conducted, would prove that it was not JFK's brain.

It seems to me that there really was no opportunity to remove and replace the brain before it arrived in the morgue at Bethesda. The only possibility for such massive tampering would have been at Parkland in Dallas, on the plane, or in another wing of Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the old morgue was. But why bother when simply switching the brain with one that showed only one shot from behind after that night was so much easier? All that was required was to kill someone to get another brain.

That last statement does not deny that someone might have tampered with the body and removed bullets if found. Certainly no one "altered" the body, due to the impossibility of same--to fool the camera's eye when autopsy pictures were made. Certainly no one had to dig into the brain before the formal autopsy to remove a bullet, since the brain was simply removed from the body and put into the Admiral's closet. The game was to trick Dr. Pierre Finck and plant a false brain in evidence with pictures of it. So maybe it is at Walter Reed today, but that too, must be doubtful, except perhaps for small portions of it. Or perhaps the real brain is still at the Smithsonian.

Let me propose an alternative "photo alteration only" scenario. There was an official brain examination at which Humes, Boswell, and Stringer were present on either November 24th or the 25th, and the real report of it was simply thrown out, the new report was somewhat invented, and a 1500 gram weight was recorded to confuse matters or give us a clue of what was going on. A different brain, apparently shot from behind, was used for photographs and put into the record. Any brain would do. Admiral Burkley, in spite of what he says, made sure the second brain was not buried in the coffin, and kept it, and perhaps this is what Finck saw a week or so later, even with changes in the convolutions and sulci--which some have explained as the result of having been fixed for so long. Whatever stayed in the stainless steel pail at the Archives for several years was not Kennedy's brain. The brain had been switched, as were the photos and films. Kennedy's brain had to be gotten rid of.

There were simply two different sets of pictures. The first set which Thomas Stringer made was discarded. Stringer strongly denied that the present photos of the brain in the National Archives are the ones he took. All the evidence Horne has collected is much more in favor of my theory that the brain was switched. Mantik comments: "So are my optical densitometer data. The brain in the X-rays is not the brain in the photos."

 

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF TISSUE SLIDES FROM TWO BRAINS, BOTH CLAIMED TO BE KENNEDY'S

We have Chief Chester Boyers' statements describing his preparation of tissue slides and sections of the brain on December 2, 1963.

The evidence is conclusive that brain tissue was also processed on Monday morning, November 25, from the testimony of Leland Benson, who was the supervising histo-pathology technician at Bethesda--clearly from the first brain examination.

In other words, there were two different sets of tissue slides and other evidence from the body. There were two different sets of tissue specimens from the two brains, and if we knew where this contradictory genetic material was, the mystery of JFK's death would begin to unravel very fast.

This is again evidence of a compartmentalized intelligence operation with two different people doing the tissue processing.

While I am playing God and sitting in judgement, I think that the scorn and ridicule that both Humes and Boswell have expressed throughout the years of exasperation and the unending quality of the case and questions posed to them leads me to doubt their veracity on every score. They, in other words, have had it with the JFK case and all of us. Even in the transcripts of their ARRB interviews, Humes' impatience and hostility comes through clearly, as it did in his interviews with the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992. They not only hate the case and their rôle in it, but all of us and history itself. They don't care except when subpoenas force them to cough up, at least something. We get only a little at a time stretched over 37 years.

These are the kind of men who would betray history and the truth. There is already evidence that they have lied a great deal. I wrote once that I believe that they were trying to tell the truth on some scores which tended to conflict with the official story, but too much has transpired to controvert the notion that the doctors, right from the start, were willing to lie and to support the official story.

There has been a massive coverup of the medical evidence. All indications are that the first brain showed a shot from in front and had a major amount of its mass missing. The second brain was seen two weeks later at another brain exam where it was photographed nearly intact, but cloven, as with a knife or hatchet, the length of the right side near the apex of the skull. This brain was not Kennedy's, and showed a shot from either behind or from in front.

The question arises as to just who it was that they shot to fabricate this part of the case, and begs the question: Was anyone else shot? Was anyone else's body used for any purpose? Maybe they just borrowed a brain from a pathology collections.

The death of Humes on May 7, 1999, before he came completely clean with his nation and history was a sad day.

But Doctor Boswell knows the story.

 

TWO DIFFERENT CHAINS OF EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTOPSY MATERIALS

The official story is that John Thomas Stringer gave his film to Dr. James Humes, who gave it all to Dr. George Burkley, the President's doctor. Dr. Humes told the Board in 1996 that Burkley told him that he was going to deliver the brain to Robert Kennedy whom he said wanted to inter it with the body days after the assassination. There is a lot wrong with this scenario, since a steel pail sat for years in the National Archives which was reputed to hold the brain. What else? Certainly the Kennedys would have wanted to inter any other part of his body that might have been separated. And, how could the brain be interred with the body on 25 November, if it had not yet been examined and photographed before 6 December, as the official evidence shows?

An attempt was made to trick us with the latest theory by false scholars that Robert Kennedy placed the brain in the coffin when the body was reinterred when a permanent vault and the eternal flame had been constructed some time later. In addition, there is continuing evidence that portions of the brain were elsewhere for private viewing.

The second chain of evidence for this material is that the Secret Service agents collected it all directly at the autopsy and passed this material some time later to Robert Kennedy.

We cannot have two chains of evidence for the same material, but we do.

Admiral Burkley's actions throughout the assassination and the aftermath have always appeared questionable to researchers.

 

TWO DIFFERENT PHOTO LABS USED FOR THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS

Officially, the photo lab used to process and print the photos taken at the autopsy was the facility at Anacostia Naval station near Washington.

The Secret Service had their own photo lab in the Executive Office Building and it appears that they might have in fact developed black and white prints, from the autopsy there. There does not seem to be any actual record of work with the autopsy films being done there, yet some of the prints we have, maybe all that are presently in the National Archives, might have been done there.

According to Saundra Spencer who worked at Anacostia, none of the autopsy pictures in the National Archives are the ones she developed. Her work was supervised by Vincent Madonia.

It seems to me that we have a deliberately false trail leading to Anacostia by conspirators in the Secret Service and perhaps the Navy--led there by James K. Fox, the Secret Service agent who accompanied Robert Knudsen to Anacostia, where records were made of the visits and work, and no records at Fox's lab at the EOB.

The story is that they were unable to develop color film at the EOB and this is why they went to Anacostia. But there were plenty of black & white photos taken at the autopsy.

 

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF X-RAYS?

The X-rays are altered.***** Two sets of X-rays make it much easier to begin construction of fake films. Taking twice as many pictures kept people out of the room for a much longer time while the body was manipulated--while bullets were removed. One hand did not know what the other was doing. Herein is the genesis of another theory about the X-rays. While the brain, perhaps, was tampered with.

Dr. John H. Ebersole, the radiologist who supervised the taking of X-rays during the autopsy, is dead. His two assistants, Edward F. Reed, and Jerrol Custer, give conflicting accounts of which of them actually operated the portable X-ray machines. Ebersole claimed he took some of the pics. Both corpsmen claim to have taken the pictures the other says he took. One might conclude that there is a strong possibility that while one was transporting exposed X-ray film to the developing lab upstairs, the other was brought into the morgue to take additional pictures of the same portions of the body just photographed. Whether the body was manipulated or tampered with in the interim, is a matter for speculation, but we seem to have conflicting X-rays that in fact show intrinsic evidence of tampering of some kind. It seems clear that they were not working together at least some of the time.

One might explain the hostility of the two technicians towards each other in psychological terms of competitiveness, but I'm, inclined to suspect that we have one more example of the sort of sinister switching of evidence and tampering that is found throughout the case. As we will see in the "Two Brain Theory" put forward by ARRB staff which I previously had described in Killing Kennedy, there is now a well established path of one hand not being told what the other was doing.

While the charade with the X-rays and two technicians repeating each other's work continued, everyone was kept out of the autopsy room. Someone was in there removing bullets, I believe. It could have happened before the autopsy officially started, too. Even at Parkland.

In other words, the autopsy was compartmentalized as with many other intelligence operations, and only the autopsy doctors hold the key, which they still will not talk about. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei, for instance, was the resident physician on duty that night and would have conducted the autopsy had not the hospital pathologists been called. Even though he was present through much of the autopsy later on, he was sent on many errands at the start and did not see what happened. The same was true of some of the corpsmen, who to this day have confusion in their minds on some points.

Dr. Pierre Finck, the Swiss born forensic pathologist in the U.S. Army at Walter Reed hospital in Washington, did not arrive until after the brain was removed from the skull, a key event we are sorry he did not witness. We now know he was present at only one of two brain exams, the brain having been removed forever from the evidence and substituted for a brain showing entirely different events now recorded with photographs and descriptions different from the one he saw two or three days after the autopsy. Finck, though, did take a look at the brain hanging in a gauze sling along with the other doctors, after he arrived.

Lt. Col. finck had performed some 200 autopsies himself prior to the night of November 22, 1963, and had been Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and had reviewed some 400 military and civilian cases sent to him from around the world.

 

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LARGE HEAD WOUND

What I mean by this is that the autopsy face sheet ostensibly made by Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, does not appear to be the same as he originally drew, even though it has blood on it. DNA tests of the blood might prove interesting, if it is a second drawing substituted for the original.

Most likely it is the original but with a large defect indicated on top of the head, either 13 cm or 17 cm in length, and very broad across the top of the head, along with the word "missing." This word appears to be added on, and did not exist--according to Jim Jenkins, who recorded the organ weights on the drawing.

James Jenkins, one of the Navy medical corpsmen assisting, stated that he wrote in the measurements and it is mostly his writing on the autopsy face sheet drawing, but he does not recognize some of the writing.

There seems little evidence that the top of the head was in fact missing, except for this drawing, and the X-rays, that "much" skull was missing at the top. Blow-ups of frame 335 of the Zapruder film (the hole seems to be blacked out when the rear of the head faces the camera in the latter frames) appears to show the back right of the head extending to its top missing, but certainly not the top of the head. No one saw it gone in Dallas, and the drawings made by those present at the autopsy are identical to those made in Dallas. Both sets of drawings show only a reasonably small (about the size of an orange) defect with both scalp and skull missing in the right rear of the skull extending forward perhaps as far as the ear.

It is more than disturbing that of all those who have questioned the witnesses over the years, no one bothered to clearly differentiate between missing skull and missing scalp. That left open the question of whether or not all of the scalp was missing or was there a flap over the missing bone? The autopsy report makes clear that there was a significant amount of missing scalp in the same area as the bone was missing, on the rear right of the head, so it does not seem reasonable that there was a large flap of scalp pulled over the missing bone such as that which is suggested in the highly suspect autopsy photos showing the back of the head with intact scalp.

Now we have more than one source to say that someone took a hammer to the head, which I reported in my second book, and evidently knocked out some bone at the top. This was independently corroborated by hearsay from separate witnesses told to the ARRB.

Not only did the entry wound move four inches up to the cowlick area according to the reading of the X-rays and photos by the Ramsey Clark Panel, none of which show anything of the kind beyond a bare suggestion, but the size and position of the large hole in the back of the head began to move and grow. It moved farther and farther forward and began to expand across the top of the head. There are four different positions for this wound.******

In my own inquiry and that of the HSCA, which was kept secret for a ling time, it is clear that the only large hole in the head on the photos was in the back right. Numerous drawings were obtained by the HSCA of the wound from those at Bethesda which I published in my last book. But the X-rays show a large skull defect going to the forehead--as Dr. Mantik drew in my last book. I first reported in 1989 that the X-rays showed a great deal of frontal bone missing and took a lot of flack for this. Yet, Dr. John Lattimer, an enemy of conspiracy theories, also interpreted the X-rays in an identical fashion with my own diagnostician, Dr. Donald Siple, and Dr. Mantik.

I find the failure throughout this case to ask certain questions of each witness more than suspicious because those questions invariably entail key issues. "We know a lot more than we used, to, though," Dr. Mantik comments.

 

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE HEAD ENTRY WOUND

The autopsy report placed the entry into the head near the hairline, just above the external occipital protuberance. There is strong evidence that the doctors originally wrote that it was below it, and they said this to the HSCA's panel of doctors. But when the Ramsey Clark panel of doctors examined the photographs and X-rays several years after the assassination, they found the entry wound to be at the top of the back of the head, in the cowlick area, four inches above the highest entry described in the autopsy report.

Richard A. Lipsey, an aide to General Philip Wehle, who sat close to the table closely observing as much as he could see, "also identified the entrance in the lower head as being just inside the hairline. Lipsey again reiterated that there is no question in his mind that the doctors felt there were three separate wounds and three separate bullets."

Keep this in mind when reading Tom Robinson's description of a probe passed through this entry hole in the back of the head and out the tracheostomy incision. The doctors never claimed this happened, except privately, but there is other evidence.

 

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE THROAT WOUND

Dr. Malcolm Perry and others who saw it at Parkland before Perry nearly (but not quite) obliterated the shape of the wound while performing a tracheostomy, stated more than once that the small hole in the throat was a wound of entry. By the time the Warren Report got ahold of it, this was an exit wound. Possible doctoring of the photos showing the wound at autopsy made it look much worse.

A theory was put forward shortly after the shooting that the hole in the throat might have indicated a fragment coming out of the head from a shot that struck him from behind near the hairline. We have speculated that the reason why the rear entry head wound was found to have moved four inches from where it was seen at the autopsy was because the trajectory from the sixth floor window was impossible if it hit him near the hairline and could not have taken off the back of his head with a tangential shot.

Dr. Robert Livingston, one of the most respected brain doctors in the world and former head of two institutes at the NIH, insisted that he telephoned Humes before the autopsy to tell him that the Dallas doctors had described an entry wound in the throat, but Humes went blithely through the official record of the autopsy pretending this never happened.

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BACK OR NECK WOUND

Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron insisted to me, and so marked a copy of the photograph showing the back and apparent wounds, that the back looked nothing like this photograph. Her statement should be put with those of Saundra Spencer who developed and printed the films taken at the autopsy that none of the pictures in the National Archives look anything like what she processed.

Once again, no one has tried to ask each witness just which of the apparent wounds or spots of blood on the back on those pictures might be the actual wound. Certainly both the holes in the coat and in the shirt are coincident with each other and show that the wound had to be six inches down on the back--which is where drawings made at the autopsy by Dr. Boswell (presumably) placed it.

Congressman (later president) Gerald Ford, who sat on the Warren Commission, made up an explanation saying that the President's coat was bunched up, and somehow that might account for the hole being six inches down from the neck, but no photos show this and it seems quite impossible. As well, men's good shirts cannot bunch up on the back when one is sitting. Taken with Ford's recent admission that he moved that wound six inches up to the neck when he was editing the Warren Report, we know that he is dishonest--nothing new for a politician. It is quite surprising that he admitted it.

But why did not the ARRB's staff contact Diana Bowron, a British citizen? I was the only person who knew where she was, but I offered to hand her over for this important work, in spite of my agreement with British authorities to keep her whereabouts secret. I tried to pass on this stricture to the ARRB, but presumably it was too tough a requirement for them to want to speak to her. Bowron is one of the most important witnesses of all. My tapes and transcripts of her, therefore, will have to be the most authoritative source of what she had to say.*******

I also knew that Marshall Collier was near Enid, Oklahoma, and in spite of numerous communications with the ARRB, it became apparent that they seemed to want to get Bruce Jamison's story to change, and that meant that it would be contradicted by Kodak. This is understandable in view of statements by witnesses at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington that they received the Zapruder film directly from Kodak in Rochester, NY, where, a Secret Service man told them, it had been developed. In other words, a film was not processed in Dallas, and some sort of shell game was played with it there. If true, Kodak would not want this information to get out.

If I would have known that they were seeking him, as I later found in Doug Horne's files at the National Archives, I would have provided the best lead on where he was. Bruce Jamison's laboratory in Dallas was where the Zapruder film was copied at least three times. None of these copies seems to have survived, although an ARRB staff member swallowed the story that one of the two "Secret Service copies" at the Archives was one of the Jamieson copies, in spite of the fact that the Archives themselves, although titling them "Secret Service Copies 1 & 2, labeled them as made by Life magazine. Supporting evidence is strong that they were in fact made by Life.

At times, it seemed that the ARRB was trying to self destruct. Certainly the fact that one of the best investigators was taken over and had become joined at the hip with a researcher known as "the mad encyclopedia salesman," showed the roots of animosity and sometimes open warfare between leading staff members, which finally spilled out into a public scene at the 1998 Lancer and COPA conferences in Dallas. Some on the staff could no longer trust a federal employee who allowed himself to be co-opted in this fashion.

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF FRONTAL BULLET WOUNDS IN THE HEAD

The government denies that President Kennedy was shot from in front, in spite of the strong belief by some of those in Dallas that he was both shot in the throat from in front and in the forehead.

Thomas Robinson, of Gawler's Funeral Home has repeatedly stated that he plugged up a hole in the temple of the President's head when the body was being prepared for what they thought would be an open coffin. It was not clarified which side of the head he meant, but he thought it was on the right side. "There was one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it." That hole would still be there. Robinson indicated that the hole which he detected in the right temple was one quarter inch across, and had also described this for the HSCA. He also found three perforations of the right cheek.

During the autopsy, "Robinson had vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the top of the probe come out of the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere." In the same interview, Robinson said that the top of the head was "all broke" but not missing at the start. It was opened by the doctors, which explains the autopsy photo we now have of the top of the head.

Above all, Dr. Marion Jenkins, in Dallas, was closest to Kennedy's head throughout the attempts to save him, and held his head in his hands while he felt for wounds with his fingers. He stated loudly enough for others to hear him, including Dr. Robert McClelland, that there was a bullet hole in the left temple. After the autopsy and the appearance of Secret Service men in Dallas--who propagandized the doctors on what they saw or did not see, according to the alleged autopsy findings--got some of them to change their opinions both as to the entry they saw in the throat, and the left temple entry hole. Jenkins then denied that he had ever said this or said that he was mistaken.

As I remembered my meeting with him in 1979, when he had me lie down on a table and demonstrated the wounds (he did this with Ben Bradlee Jr. when my Boston Globe team went to Dallas to check my work), he said that he "thought" there was an entry hole in the left temple, but he was evidently mistaken.

"In Jenkin's written report, he noted that JFK had chest damage, a fact the WC had to disregard to sell the "single-bullet" theory. That theory involved raising the wound in JFK's back to the back of his neck so that it would correspond to JFK's throat wound, which in turn was changed from an entrance wound into an exit wound. After years of having his own opinions differ so strongly with the official version of the facts, Jenkins did the natural thing: he began to believe that he was mistaken. Jenkins later said, "The first day I had thought that the one bullet must have . . . gotten into the lung cavity, I mean, from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did." Jenkins' waffling opinion does not alter the fact that, while JFK was in the Parkland Hospital Emergency Room, a tube was inserted into his chest for drainage." Actually, there was more than one.

Jenkins testified to the Warren Commission: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." You get the picture of how the Dallas doctors had their observations perverted by Secret Service men coming to see them with false findings from the autopsy report. The mortician, Tom Robinson, saw the same hole in the right temple, and plugged it.

It is more than significant, perhaps, that some Secret Service began making as careful a record as they could as soon as the shots were fired. They went about Parkland with a pad of tear off notation paper from the hospital and got the doctors to write down what they saw. This might be one of the most important acts following the murder. Some of the agents felt that there was a conspiracy and that some of their number might have been involved, so they made a record, which at least would serve to clear themselves of complicity. Documents exist in the record where some Secret Service personnel felt that some of their number had participated in the conspiracy. Certainly, if they were in the motorcade, they were aware of shots from the front of the fatal car and the strange behavior of the driver, a Northern Irish Protestant who had previously lived on the estate of Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican, whose devotion to South Vietnam as our ambassador served to enrich those who used the war. Lodge was on Nixon's ticket as vice-presidential candidate in 1960 when Kennedy and Johnson defeated them.

Bullet entry holes shrink a little after a bullet passes through. This is true even of skull bone, which expands a bit. If covered by hair, such an entry might be difficult to detect if great care is not taken.

 

TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TOP OF THE SKULL

Clearly, what we have with Boswell's drawing of a skull and a large amount of alleged damage, was not seen at the autopsy when the body came in, but it is on the X-rays. It might very well represent what the skull looked like after the hole was enlarged to remove what remained of the brain.

In addition, the photos of the top of the head seem to clearly show that from the center of the skull from front to back, scalp seems to be reflected to the left, uncovering the right half of the skull of an open wound with no bone, and the brain clearly showing at the top. This must be impossible because so much brain was missing--more than one third or half of it was gone--and it was entirely missing from the right side, with the X-rays showing some from the left gone as well.

The photo taken directly at the top of the head as it lay on the table face up must therefore be false insofar as it is interpreted as showing all the bone on top gone. Most interpretations, however, indicate that no bone is missing on the left, but we are looking at scalp reflected to the left that some think is missing bone. The scalp is folded over along the center of the head from right to left.

I think I should publish at this point the opinion of others present at the autopsy that pressure should be brought on Boswell to tell us the truth about many matters in conflict at the autopsy because he is "the weak link" and he is "the most vulnerable" of the surviving doctors.

 

THE AUTOPSY CAMERA--TWO DIFFERENT CAMERAS?

A major question has arisen as to what happened to the actual camera that took the autopsy photos. The alleged camera was located by the Navy and the intent was to loan it to the HSCA for examination in 1977, but they said they never got the right camera: "After examining the camera and comparing its features with characteristics noted on the autopsy photographs, our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take the autopsy pictures." "More likely the camera was correct, but the photos were forgeries," my chief advisor tells me.

 

TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF FILM AT THE AUTOPSY

John Thomas Stringer, the Navy photographer, has testified on numerous occasions that he used Ektachrome color film, yet the film some of the pictures were printed from is Ansco.

Some descriptions list only color negatives, while others insist that only color positives were made.

"Can you identify from the negatives in front of you whether those photographs are from a press pack?" "I think they are. Yes." "Would it be fair to say, then, that by your recollection, that the black and white negatives in front of you now were not taken by you during the supplemental autopsy on President Kennedy?"

"Correct. This is Ansco." Stringer explains that Ansco is a super high pan, and "I think its from a film pack." What kind of film did Robert Knudsen normally use?

So, how do we get some black and white photos that are nearly identical or nearly identical to some of the color photos? Some, certainly, appeared to be tinted and retouched and could have been done from black and whites.

 

FILM HOLDERS, PRESS PACKS, OR ROLLS?

Stringer used an old fashioned view type camera which took duplex film holders that had one exposure on each side. He insists that he did not use a press pack or 35mm rolls of film, yet these are in evidence.

 

BODY THEFT AND ALTERATION THEORY

This major fraud sustained some stunning blows in recent years, and it would seem the final coup de grâce when some of those present at the autopsy drew for the HSCA the exact same large defect, about the size of an orange, on the back of representations of JFK's head. No one drew a large hole on top of the head, or even in front of the ear, let alone above it.

The X-rays do show such a large skull defect. Perhaps David Lifton, David Mantik and I all agree that body tampering occurred somewhere that day, but we disagree on the motive. Mantik and myself think efforts were made to retrieve bullets, while Lifton believes the motive was to deceive the camera by altering the wounds.

 

FABRICATED NON-MEDICAL EVIDENCE

TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BULLET FOUND AT PARKLAND

The men who first found and handled the bullet found on a stretcher, said by them not to be either Kennedy's or Connally's stretcher, described an entirely different type of bullet. A photograph of a bullet similar to what they saw can be seen in Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds In Dallas (p. 229 of the 1976 Berkley paperback edition) and in High Treason, just before p. 25. Thompson's book tells us what the men said and the circumstances of the bullet's discovery.

Prof. Jerry Rose of the State University of New York, wrote that "The Secret Service and the FBI had possession of CE 399 (the 'magic bullet') for plenty of time to have fabricated it as the 'found' bullet. 'Appalling' as such an idea may be, we are forced to entertain the possibility that the custodians of assassination evidence may have been assassination conspirators. Once we have cleared this mental hurdle, it becomes possible to look at the validity of the ballistics evidence in new ways."

 

TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM

Please see the separate chapter on the Zapruder film.

 

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF DALLAS EVIDENCE PHOTOGRAPHED

The Dallas police possessed a state of the art Recordak I.C. Camera, and they themselves photographed all of the evidence found in Ruth Paine's Garage and at Oswald's rented room. The FBI then removed all of this material to Washington and made their own photographs. Their reels of film do not contain photos of a large quantity of the evidence, and apparently many frames are missing from the Dallas reels of film. A more extensive paper on this major problem has been prepared by British researcher Malcolm Blunt.

 

TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF OSWALD'S MINOX SPY CAMERA

Originally, a Minox camera was alleged to have been found at Oswald's rooming house--a very small camera commonly known to be used primarily by spies, and which could photograph documents with great fidelity so that they might be reduced to microdots, a technique used in World War II to great advantage by spies.

This camera was later changed to being a "light meter" and then it was claimed that the camera actually existed, but was owned by Michael Paine, Ruth's husband, and not Oswald.

The Minox camera in the National Archives is supposed to be the same one that was found among Oswald's possessions. It is not a light meter. Malcolm Blunt, who photographed it at the Archives, reports that it is sealed shut and is in mint condition. Malcolm states that he has handled it and that it is very heavy, as though it is filled with something. The Archives exhibit does not have the initials of the police who found it--Gus Rose or Richard Stovall. Michael Paine has said that the camera belonged to him and not to Oswald, and that the FBI returned it to him (stated on PBS's "Front Line"). It was later stolen along with all of his camera equipment. This raises serious questions about not only the Minox camera but much or everything that we are being shown in the Archives, since they claim to have it. As with many other questions, the same problem arises with the alleged Jamieson copies of the Zapruder film made the day Kennedy died.

According to Ruth Paine's interview with the FBI, the camera was dropped into the sea and was rusty, unworkable, and dented, Blunt tells me. "This is not the camera alleged to belong to Michael Paine. Paine says his camera was returned and stolen."

Year by year, the National Archives is putting the physical evidence out of reach of researchers. In other words, they are closing down a major part of our work. We can no longer see the physical evidence but are offered high resolution photographs. This does not allow us, for instance, to measure lengths between bullet damage on the windshield and edges. Every sort of excuse is given for us to be precluded from examining important material such as the rifle, clothing, cameras, and so on. Yet the Archives can see fit to send off to other museums material of this nature, such as Zapruder's camera, especially to Dallas museums.

 

SECRET INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ASSASSINATION

Robert Knudsen's widow told the ARRB that her husband was called before some sort of Congressional Committee in September, 1988, but she had no name for it. She said that they put considerable fear into him and he shortly died in 1989.

We know that Patrick Moynihan conducted an investigation for the Kennedy family shortly after JFK died, but no findings from his work have ever been made available. This was separate from the congressional investigation described by Mrs. Knudsen. Moynihan will not talk.

It is my belief that the extensive investigation conducted by the ARRB would have been kept secret as well, had it not become impossible to keep that secret, had not so many researchers become aware of it, and had not such internal strife broken out among the staff of that Presidentially appointed board. In fact, the Board never did make findings of any kind in their inquiry, and did not prepare any formal, public report about the evidence and depositions in their actual investigation of the assassination, but only delivered to the Archives the raw data, depositions, reports and memoranda regarding the effort.

 

ARRB's VISIT TO DALLAS AND THE PARKLAND DOCTORS

I was the first person to go to Dallas and show the Parkland doctors a copy of the tracing of the back of the head photograph of JFK at the autopsy, published by the HSCA in 1979. This was a shattering experience, and I was not prepared for the consequences of what I had done or the major implications of what it meant when they basically ridiculed this image--identical to what is in the National Archives. My problem was to get this information out.

The picture of the back of the head was being put forward by the government committee, and we might now ask why they put forward such a false photograph, and allowed to escape from their control numerous other views of the body which soon leaked out and in time were published. Yet, we have not seen any of those described as being in Robert Knudsen's possession, nor those developed by Saundra Spencer at Anacostia. I know the autopsy pictures were all over Washington, though, in the '60s. Were they the same as the ones we have now?

Both Steve Barber and myself and some others may very well have seen some of these pictures, but have no way of knowing. We both saw right profile pictures of the head lying flat with a large hole directly on the right side above the right ear. One showed the brain filling the space with none of it missing, and the other showed no brain at all in the head. My immediate response at the time (1979) was that it was art work of some kind, as I responded to the retouching I'm sure that I saw on all of the other color prints.

Yet the effort to officially confirm or deny my findings in Dallas which clearly showed that the head looked nothing like what it does in the official photographs, was apparently sabotaged when the ARRB only organized a trip to Dallas at the very last moment of its investigation, and the National Archives felt that it was unable to provide security for the photos on the trip. So they were not shown to the doctors--certainly something that should have been done long ago if the government legitimately wanted to know if the pictures were true or false.

Doug Horne, the military analyst working for the ARRB, argued in a paper that the ARRB should "Exhibit Autopsy Images (color positive transparencies) that have been alleged by others, or may reasonably or possibly be interpreted, to depict the pre-incision condition of President Kennedy's Head at autopsy (namely, views 1,2,3,4,5, and 6). Ask each witness whether each view matches, or does not match, his (sic) recollection of the head wound in Dallas, particularly at the last moment the President was seen. Ask the same questions about the tracheostomy incision. . . About the Autopsy Images as They Relate to His Recollection of That Treatment." This was what I already had accomplished in Dallas in 1979. We needed official confirmation of my findings, but the ARRB didn't dare.

There were plenty of copies around, so why didn't the Board get good copies from researchers? The ARRB had such copies but didn't dare conduct the inquiry about the pictures with the Dallas doctors, not even with good copies. The National Archives story was just a dodge.

My 1979 interviews, therefore, stand as the final word for now.

We might discuss the action of the National Archives' Steve Tilley, a former employee of the Pentagon's National Security Agency, who could not arrange for security for the autopsy photographs to go to Dallas for the above crucial interviews. Strange that he and the Archives would loan one of the most crucial pieces of evidence of all, the Bell & Howell camera used by Abraham Zapruder to shoot his famous film of the assassination, to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas.

The camera, loaned by the Archives, was in Dallas for a period of years, including the time that the ARRB sent its interviewers to Dallas to speak with the Parkland doctors. The camera was without federal protection and might have been tampered with or substituted. The National Archives has not allowed test film to be shot from it.

What is the camera doing in Dallas, the hotbed of the conspiracy? Who made the decision to loan any part of our history to this museum which was set up to make the city of Dallas look good? To make Dallas look like it gave a hoot what happened to John Kennedy on the street directly below its windows. What kind of security does the camera have there?

The National Archives comes in at a crucial moment at the end of the new investigation and gives one of the Board's most important efforts--one which I initiated in 1979 when I went there with images from the autopsy and showed them to the doctors in an unofficial capacity--the coup de grâce! At least, for the record.

Throughout the years quite a lot of evidence seems to have disappeared from the Archives, the keeper of our national history. Quite a lot of evidence was apparently switched while in the possession and under the protection of the National Archives.

Why, might we ask, was a Texan in charge of the JFK collection from the start?

OSWALD: TWO EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS

There are two different employment applications for Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository in evidence: One apparently in Oswald's handwriting, and another filled out by hand by Dallas police detective V.J. Brian. Brian was one of the detectives who searched the TSBD immediately following the shooting, and it was he who began ripping acoustical tiles off the ceiling on the second floor when someone said that the assassin might be hiding there.

We did not know about the alternative form which is nearly the same as the one filled out and signed by Oswald on October 15, 1963, until the Chief of Police printed it in his book about the case, Assassination File, in 1969. This copy of the form has a note on it "by Brian," so it is safe to assume that officer V.J. Brian filed it out and signed Oswald's name to it. There are two versions. But why? Was the copy machine broken down? Did they have copy machines? The FBI and the Warren Commission were able to make a photo or fax copy of the authentic document.

"Since the FBI and the Warren Commission did copy the 'authenticated' version of the document, this DPD inability is difficult to understand. Even with this 'benign' explanation, the sinister possibilities for document forgery must not be overlooked. What the Brian 'copy' means at a very minimum is that the DPD had access to at least one blank application form from the TSBD, facilitating any possible documentary forgery. . . I have to wonder if Brian's copy was not in fact one of numerous 'working papers' used by a forger in fabricating the 'Oswald' documents. On this interpretation, the DPD, having had access to one TSBD blank, may as well have had access to two blanks, one used by Brian to list the 'information' on Oswald, the other used to fabricate the application in Oswald's 'authenticated' writing and signature. What I suggest is that it is not Brian's version but the 'official' version which is in fact a 'copy' from another document. On this account, the 'working paper' should have been destroyed after the forger had done his work, but, like Ollie North years later, the document-shredders of that day overlooked a few items on Shredding Day."

The Warren Commission caught the Dallas Police and Lt. Jack Reville directly in a fabrication when they tried to use this same Brian as a witness to a claim that FBI agent Hosty ran up to Reville and said that Oswald was capable of violence. Hosty vehemently denied this, and we can read about it on page 441 of the Warren Report. "To its credit, Warren Commission counsel was suspicious of this late-appearing 'evidence' and engaged in an exchange of correspondence with Jesse Curry that made it pretty clear that this was a DPD fabrication."

Prof. Jerry Rose continues: "If Brian were so agreeable to the DPD's schemes in the Hosty/Reville matter, one wonders what he may not have been willing to contribute to DPD duplicity." What it boils down to in another respect is an attempt by the police to shift the heat away to the FBI by accusing them of something when the FBI was breathing too closely down their necks.

 

OSWALD: COULD HE SPEAK RUSSIAN, OR COULDN'T HE?

Apologists for the Warren Report insist that Oswald's Russian was very bad. I published the statements of some of those who knew him, including George DeMohrenschildt, who said that he was very fluent and it was difficult for Russians to determine that Oswald was not from East Europe. Some felt that he had a Baltic accent, and one felt that he had a Polish accent.

The questions are: How fluent was he when he went to the Soviet Union? How was he trained in Russian while he was in the Marine Corps, or did he train himself as the Warren Commission maintained? How fluent was he before he went to Monterey? And when did he go to Monterey?

Was it the same Oswald in the Soviet Union who spoke the language so well, or was it a double agent posing as him, equipped with his identity? J. Edgar Hoover's teletype long before the assassination said that he suspected that the Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow (the alleged defector) was an "imposter." This is a famous story over the years. Strange how Hoover became a party to the conspiracy that murdered JFK--used Oswald as the Fall Guy a few years later.

OSWALD'S ROOMING HOUSE REGISTRY SIGNATURES

Sometimes in the evidence we find Lee Harvey Oswald's name expressed in different ways, such as "Harvey Lee Oswald," or "O.H. Lee." The Warren Commission thought that this was proof of his "anti-social" proclivities. That was part of the set-up, one would think--the frame.

The signature for O.H. Lee at 1026 No. Beckley, where Oswald definitely lived for a time, certainly doesn't seem to be his. His landlady at North Beckley was Gladys Johnson, and her housekeeper who kept the records of Oswald's rent was Earlene Roberts. She is the one who saw a police car come up to the house and slightly beeped its horn after Oswald entered, a half hour after the assassination of JFK. Her sister, Bertha Cheek, almost bought half of Ruby's Carousel some time before. Small world, eh?

Gladys Johnson said that Oswald signed his own name, and that is how he signed it (O.H. Lee). Not only does it not look like his signature, but there is no resemblance between this writing and any other authenticated Oswald handwriting. And nobody ever authenticated it for the Warren Commission or the HSCA.

The investigators, with clear evidence that Oswald was either living under an alias (when Ruth Paine and Marina called the rooming house with the number Oswald had given them, they were told there was no Lee Harvey Oswald living there) or there was an imposter living there. The landlady recognized Oswald's picture on television that night as being their tenant whom they knew as "O.H. Lee." Why did they not investigate the possibility that the landlady fabricated the slip of paper with the signature on it, since it was already clear to the Warren Commission that she was after a few bucks anyway (she did not want to give up the paper to the WC, but they offered to copy it, so she might have wanted to sell it for its assassination related value); or that the police or someone else was framing Oswald with the help of the landlady.

But we never had a hope of that sort of investigation at the time.

 

DIFFERENT RIFLES

Do we really have the murder weapon in the National Archives? Was it ever in Ruth Paine's garage? Ruth and her husband were Quakers and surely they would have discovered and ejected a weapon of violence from their household. They continually re-arranged what was stored in their garage and would have found this rifle had it been there.

Was it the weapon that was claimed to have shot John Kennedy? Surely, if there was more than one gunman, it wasn't the only weapon involved. My question is, was the Mannlicher Carcano ever involved at all, and was it just another plant, as I believe the bullet at Parkland, the shell casings found at the TSBD, and perhaps the fragments found in the limousine and in the body?

We've all heard about the "Mauser" that was found. Was it the same or a different rifle? There was also a story about a 30.06 rifle.

 

THE BLANKET STORY

It was claimed that the rifle was wrapped in a blanket while it was kept in Ruth Paine's garage where Oswald stored his stuff. Was this really so? The Shroud of Turin has been claimed to have the outline of Christ's body on it, which it may or may not have, and so the empty blanket, not so scientifically examined, was claimed by the police who found it to have the outline of a rifle showing. No one ever saw the outline again, but that is not to say that it wasn't there when first found. It would be natural for such an outline to be lost the moment the blanket was opened.

Jerry Rose calls this the "miracle of the blanket." He has that right.

 

DIFFERENT BULLET FRAGMENTS

Dealt with in other books of mine is evidence that the fragments removed from John Connally's body, which were temporarily given to Audrey Bell, were considerably larger that what we have today in evidence. Her statements are compelling.********

 

TWO LIMOUSINE WINDSHIELDS

Reporters on the scene described a bullet hole clean through the windshield of the car when it arrived at Parkland. One said he could put a pencil through it. Witnesses said that it was coned inward, meaning a shot came from the front of the car and passed through the windshield. Safety glass cracks on the opposite side of where it is struck.

Searchers found a crack on the outside of the glass on the driver's side. But two Secret Service agents said that when the car was inspected in Washington, the outside surface of the windshield was "smooth and unbroken." The FBI's firearms expert, Robert Frazier, drove over to a garage with four other FBI men the night of the assassination and with the help of Secret Service agents, rolled out the limousine and looked for bullets or fragments, which they found, and also checked the windshield.

"They measured the crack on the windshield, gleaming in the artificial light like a spider web. Then they ran their fingers across it, outside and inside. Outside the spider web was smooth to the touch. Inside it was sharp and grooved. They carefully scraped the cracks with a knife and captured tiny bits of metal along with the ground glass. Later they would discover that the metal was identical with the slivers found during the autopsy." This tells us that the glass was splintered off on the inside of the windshield, meaning a shot from in front came at the car. Also we are getting this second hand from the FBI's Cartha DeLoach, one of Hoover's top guns, but he was not a fool and his report of what his men told him should be accurate.

Richard Dudman, that trouble-maker, wrote in the St. Louis Post Dispatch an article headed "Unexplained Circumstances of a small hole in the windshield of the Presidential Limousine." It looked like a bullet hole to those who saw it at Parkland. Among the observers were police officers, Stavis Ellis and H.R. Freeman. "There was a hole in the left front windshield," Ellis said. "It was a hole. You could put a pencil through it. You could take a regular standard pencil. . . and stick it through there." Ellis told researcher Gil Toff that a Secret Service man ran up and said, "That's no bullet hole. That's a fragment." Ellis commented "It wasn't a damn fragment. It was a bullet hole!" Freeman verified this: "I was right beside it. You could have touched it. . . It was a bullet hole, you could tell what it was."

Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, who watched the FBI men inspect the limousine, said that there was "the small hole, just left of center, in the windshield."

Barry Carl Rowlands asks: "Was the windshield that was removed from the car the week following the assassination the same one that came into the possession of the FBI four months later? According to the FBI lab, the windshield contained no hole, the only damage being located on the front surface. The inside surface of the windshield was now smooth, which indicated a bullet striking the glass from behind. This transformation seems to have the somewhat sinister effect of incriminating Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, firing from above and behind the limousine."

Robert Smith, a researcher, interviewed Bill Ashby, crew leader of the Arlington Glass Company who removed the windshield on 27 November, 1963. He said it was the inside surface that was damaged.

Secret Service executive James Rowley, who is omnipresent in the record of so much connected with the assassination, wrote a letter on 6 January, 1964 saying that agents Geis and Davis were present when the limousine arrived from Dallas and that they ran their hands over the windshield and discovered that the outside surface was "smooth and unbroken." This is not credible if it means there was no hole at all in the glass.

Jim Bishop (p. 511) reported in his book, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, that Secret Service execs Paul Paterni and Floyd Boring "observed the small but discernable crack located on the inside surface of the windshield and assessed it as new." Yet Rowley wrote the Warren Commission on January 4, 1964 saying "There is no hole or crack in the windshield." In total contradiction came the FBI supplemental report, dated January 13, 1964. The Bureau's formidable director, J. Edgar Hoover, stated "The windshield was cracked." The FBI's director was, incongruously, backed up by Rowley's own Secret Service agents. . . ."

Another Secret Service report describes the visit of the FBI team of five men under Frazier at 1 a.m., November 23, to examine the car the night of the assassination. "In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of the center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion."

Barry Carl Rowlands wrote that "Rowley's letter was at total variance with the cogent description of a bullet hole contained in Taylor's report. This dichotomy only served to focus on the growing schism between the Secret Service and the FBI on this issue." Rowlands continues to say that if the actual witnesses to the damage in the windshield are correct, it would indicate, from the plethora of physical evidence, that one windshield with a hole was seemingly switched for one with no hole, but with the damage on the outside surface. . . A windshield with damage on the inside was now replaced by one damaged on the outside surface, ingeniously reversing the direction of the projectile that struck it from front to rear, thereby concealing the presence of a second gunman firing from a point in front of the Presidential limousine."

Various researchers believe that the windshield was switched more than once over the years. It is currently and probably forever unavailable in the National Archives, but they will kindly share with us photographs of it alongside or in its crate. We can't try to stick a pencil through the pictures, which I have copies of. They say the cracks are spreading and to move it will threaten it as a piece of evidence. Evidence for what in the new millennium? Isn't it too late? Can I see it in its crate?

Doug Weldon located the Ford Motor Company employee who received the actual windshield. He confirmed what the Dallas witnesses said. The real item was junked.

All my attempts for the last many years to have Steve Tilley show me the windshield at the Archives have failed.

TWO EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DENT IN THE CHROME WINDSHIELD FRAME

There is a large round dent in the frame to the left of the rear view mirror, and this looks precisely like the dent a bullet makes in steel. But the government claimed that it was an accident when the top was being placed on the car at an earlier time.

There is no way that steel that thick is going to take a dent that big while putting the top on.

Only a bullet can make a dent like that. I know. I was shot at from close range, and the Baltimore Sun published a photo of the same type of deep dent in the door frame of a car after I survived. Were it not for that door frame, I would not be out here making trouble.

It was a .45 slug.

 

TWO FBI REPORTS: THE PAPER BAG STORY

A long time ago, Penn Jones, Jr., one of the leading researchers and critics of the Warren Report, printed two FBI reports dealing with the same paper bag that the rifle was alleged to have been carried to the Depository Building in, but one report had changed the facts so that it said the opposite of the other.

The two reports dealt with the statement of Lt. Carl Day of the DPD and state that "he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. TRULY, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. DAY. TRULY, according to DAY, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. TRULY furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting. The Dallas police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by DAY, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent DRAIN for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent DRAIN on November 24, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory.

"Lt. DAY stated that no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department."

The italics above are mine to show the difference in the second document which says instead that "This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. . . "

But the first document survived through either some bureaucratic bungling or deliberately. How many other facts in a nation of deliberately fabricated cases are rewritten in similar fashion? How many in the JFK case?

Jack Dougherty said he saw Oswald enter the TSBD the morning of the assassination, and said that he did not think that Oswald was carrying anything. He did not see the paper bag that allegedly had the gun in it.

Buell Wesley Frazier drove Oswald to work that day, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, say that Oswald carried what he said were "curtain rods" in a paper bag of some kind (I can't imagine this) and that the bag was too short to have contained even a disassembled rifle. Oswald had his hand cupped around the bottom of the bag and the top was under his arm pit, a distance of about two feet. The barrel of the rifle, even if removed from the stock, was 38 inches long, which is 14 inches too long to be underneath the armpit.

TWO OR MORE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE "SNIPER'S NEST" CARTONS

The fact that the police immediately moved the cartons of books around in the sniper's nest is well known. The photographs we now have of this corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD were taken sometime after discovery and after the cartons had changed their position, and need not be further explicated here. How much of a difference it makes is difficult to determine, but certainly any claim that fingerprints were found that showed the hands of the sniper were pointed towards the street would be highly suspect. Anyone could have handled the boxes, and certainly Oswald would have, since that was his job.

This seems to be an example, as so much we have experienced in the case, of overkill on the part of the conspirators--of trying to cover all the bases when perhaps some of it was unnecessary.

 

TWO OF EVERYTHING IN THE TIPPIT SHOOTING

The government did not relinquish the autopsy report on Officer Tippit for many years. What was the reason? Certainly it might have had to do with the bullets that were found in the body--said to be three. One other bullet was removed at Methodist hospital where he was taken first, before the autopsy at Parkland.

We have two different versions of the shooting, from those who later claimed that it was Oswald and there was only one gunman, and the on the spot witnesses that saw two gunmen, neither of whom was Oswald.

We have two teenage schoolgirls, the Davis sisters, who did not live in Dallas but were staying close by where Tippit was shot, who say they saw someone cross their lawn, ejecting shells from a revolver. The girls later retrieved two of the shells. Why was their phone number in Jack Ruby's notebook? Prof. Jerry Rose discovered during close examination of the WC copy of Jack Ruby's notebook the same phone number as the girls alongside the name Leona Miller. True, he lived nearby, but with Ruby also at Parkland hospital shortly after the shooting, one wonders if he planted the shells on the Davis sisters, and if he planted CE 399 at Parkland. Ruby said there was a "Leona" at the synagogue service which he attended the night JFK was killed.

One of the bullets retrieved from the body were Remington-Peters, and two were Winchester-Western, which in itself is not impossible since the gun would fire both. Two were .38 specials. It is said that perhaps one bullet went wild and was lost, and one shell casing was never found. As stated in the Tippit chapter, two of the shell casings found at the scene were made by Western-Winchester, whereas there were three bullets in the body made by that company, and one bullet made by Remington-Peters. Two shell casings were made by Remington Peters. Because of the mis-match, there is an implication that 5 shots were fired and one bullet and one shell are missing. Or that two guns were used.

 

TWO WEAPONS IN THE TIPPIT SHOOTING

The evidentiary record makes clear that the first police on the scene found shells from an automatic pistol, not a revolver. Officer Hill said this on the radio, and another officer, independently determined that an automatic pistol had been used.

The revolver claimed to have been Oswald's and used in the Tippit shooting, was a 38 Special, a pistol that could fire regular .38 caliber rounds which were smaller than the gun barrel and which therefore did not take normal barrel rifling marks. The slugs found were not, therefore, linked to the handgun claimed to have been found on Oswald.

 

THE DISCARDED JACKET: TWO VERSIONS

Just after the shooting of Officer Tippit, a witness sitting in a car described a man running through a lot nearby and took off and discarded his jacket. This jacket was described as white (it was also filmed and looks white), but the one in the National Archives is grey.

 

THE TIPPIT SLAYING: Two Wallets Found at the Scene?

A wallet was apparently found at the scene of the Tippit murder which appears to have been Lee Harvey Oswald's. Yet shortly after Oswald was captured at the Texas theatre, Officer Paul Bentley removed a wallet from Oswald's pocket and examined its contents. Or at least that is the official story and testimony.

John Armstrong, a researcher in Oklahoma, has done important work on the "Two Oswald Theory." He also wrote an article for The Fourth Decade (September, 1998, which presented the evidence for a different finding of Oswald's wallet. Former FBI agent James Hosty's book says that agent Robert Barrett insisted that "Dallas Police Captain Westbrook found Oswald's brown wallet next to where Tippit had fallen and showed it to FBI Agent Barrett." But Hosty, to be fair, felt that "I have to speculate at the theatre, Westbrook had handed the wallet to a lower-ranking officer, and in the confusion it was assumed the wallet had been retrieved from Oswald's person. The FBI decided to go with the official police version, even though Barrett's version was further proof that Oswald had in fact gunned Officer Tippit down." Hardly likely that the FBI would have foregone such proof when they were soon at the throats of the Dallas Police. Also, it is difficult to discount the statements of the police that they removed the wallet from Oswald's pocket in the squad car after his capture.

Dale Myers, author of With Malice, wrote that FBI agent Bob Barrett believed that Oswald's wallet had been recovered at the scene of Tippit's murder, and he reinforced this when he returned to the scene in March, 1964. "Barrett stated that according to a witness, the gunman handed something through the open passenger side window to Tippit inside the car. 'I heard this latter,' Barrett explained. 'Somebody told me that they saw him reach in and hand something to Tippit through the window. . . . it would follow that's how the wallet got there. And, the wallet was there. There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me if I knew who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet; in which those two names were in it. . . Barrett has always believed that Tippit met his death because of the wallet he was handed. Upon seeing the two identifications, Barrett believes, Tippit emerged from the car to question Oswald further and was shot."

Myers also describes the only film or TV footage at the scene shortly after Tippit was shot, film made by Ron Reiland of WFAA-TV. The film shows sergeant 'Bud' Owens holding Tippit's revolver and a man's leather wallet in his hands. Owens shows the wallet to Captain George Doughty and it is examined by them and a third man who arrives. Captain Westbrook asked Barrett if he knew who Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell were. Identification for both men was in the wallet.

It is highly unlikely that a man who just shot a police officer would leave his wallet at the scene, yet coolly eject shells from his revolver and reload it as he walked away. The wallet must have been planted on the scene, and its discovery made there. Then, for some reason, the story changed and the wallet is removed from Oswald's pocket in the police car as he is being driven away from where he was arrested.

Sergeant Gerald Hill was filmed by NBC sometime after the arrest when he said that "the only way we found out his name was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn't even tell us what his name was." Armstrong writes: "The Dallas Police now had two wallets each containing identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee J. Hidell."

Someone watching Oswald closely had a good idea what he kept in his wallet, and must have created a second wallet with similar contents, and this was given to Tippit by the real gunman to frame Oswald.

No autopsy report for J.D. Tippit was ever placed in evidence by the Warren Commission. There are important questions about the shooting and wounding: How many wounds were there? Where were they on the body? What kind and how many bullets were found in the body?

This book has a chapter on the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit which points out many of the opposing pieces of evidence.

As many researchers have pointed out in the past, there are many coincidences in the assassination of John Kennedy.

Jerry Rose, a great, unassuming, and unsung hero of the case and the research community, puts forward the theory that many of the coincidences with regard to Ruby and Oswald and their many intermediate links indicate that at the very least Ruby was planting witnesses for the shooting of J.D. Tippit:

"I want to take a relatively original approach here to the question of a pre-assassination relationship between Jack Ruby and J.D. Tippit. What I want to bring out here is something of the large number of indirect linkages of Ruby and Tippit: some of the many 'coincidences' of association between Ruby associates and persons who were either associates of Tippit or witnesses to his murder. The purpose of this analysis is to suggest--certainly not to prove--that: (a) Tippit was recruited into a conspiracy against Oswald by employing the linkages between his own associations and those of Tippit; and (b) (an entirely original idea, I think) that Ruby used these same linkages to set up a group of 'witnesses' to Tippit's murder who would implicate Oswald as the murderer.*********

The above concept of Ruby's actions threatens a few of the theories put forward of the assassination.

 

TWO VERSIONS OF THE BULLET FOUND AT GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE

The bullet that turned up at the Warren Commission as part of the story to construct a violent background for Lee Harvey Oswald by showing he took a shot at General Walker, months before the assassination, was claimed by Walker not to be remotely like the one he found in his house. Of course, the bullet that the government got was claimed to be linked to the Mannlicher Carcano rifle attributed to LHO after the assassination.

 

THE BACKYARD PHOTOS

The problems with the famous "backyard" photos of Oswald holding a rifle, two politically opposed Socialist and Communist newspapers, and a revolver on his belt have been written about and discussed by many. The photographs appear to the eye as obvious forgeries, probably made up by police photographic rookie Roscoe White. Lots of people like playing games like this with photos in the dark room, and one of these ended up on the cover of Life.**********

 

TWO DIFFERENT OSWALDS?

The recent work of John Armstrong suggests that there was a second Oswald developed by an intelligence operation from an early stage dating back to high school. Long ago, Professor Richard Popkin propounded the theory that there was someone posing as Oswald.*********** Since there was documented evidence before the Warren Commission that someone using Oswald's name was in New Orleans while another Oswald was in the Soviet Union as an alleged defector, one might well wonder. Certainly evidence of another Lee Harvey Oswald taking a car out of an auto showroom for a spin, of being at a shooting range and visiting a gun shop, ultimately indicated that someone else was using Oswald's name and posing as him. Oswald could not drive.

In spite of all the recent research and evidence about the apparent visit of Oswald to Mexico City not long before the assassination, I still am not convinced that he ever went there even if only because he was directed to as part of his perhaps unwitting participation in the conspiracy--to leave a false trail of a dissatisfied Leftist who ultimately would kill the President.

It is my belief that the ARRB was deliberately sent on a vast wild goose chase to Mexico City, just as the House Select Committee on Assassinations was twenty years before, to investigate intelligence operations for researchers under the guise of an interest in JFK's death, which might have been legitimate enough. They succeeded in eating up the ARRB's time and resources.

ANOTHER OSWALD AGAIN?

Researchers John Armstrong and William Weston have found a major new reason to think there was a second Oswald: Palmer McBride, who worked with Oswald at the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory in New Orleans. To quote people who have studied McBride, "you can bet your life on what he says about anything." McBride insists that Oswald worked at the Lab from December 1957 to around April 1958, when he was supposed to be in New Orleans, but the official story is that he worked there in 1956. The Warren Report "arbitrarily moved the time of Oswald's employment at Pfisterer back to the year 1956--a full two years earlier than what McBride remembered.

This is one more example of either someone using Oswald's name in New Orleans (along with buying some trucks for Cuba) or Oswald himself being there when another person of that identity, undoubtedly assumed, was in the Marines. For a variety of reasons, it is unlikely that there were two completely separate people with the same birth name, but there are people who assume the identity of another to escape debts or criminal prosecution. It is also common in intelligence operations to create more than one person with the same name and background, or different backgrounds.

Armstrong's work on new aspects of the "Two Oswald Theory" is massive and may be obtained in his recent book in two volumes (see the bibliography under Jerry Robertson). Armstrong found a W-2 form for Oswald in the files of the Dallas police for 1956 with Oswald's New Orleans' address--126 Exchange Place. Oswald lived there from April 1955 to July 1956. The authenticity of the document is questionable, as the employer identification number is 72-8444599 is not a 1956 number. The IRS sent a letter to an officer of the Lab, Linda Faircloth, saying that the number was generated in 1964.

Weston writes, "The W-2 is therefore a fraud. Someone in possession of the original, probably the FBI, realized that something was significantly wrong and ordered a false one made. The original was doubtless destroyed. This problem of January 1964 employer identification numbers also appears on the W-2's of Dolly Shoe Company and the Tujaque shipping company." Apparently the Social Security Administration has no records for Oswald in the years before 1962, as the HSCA learned. "The substitution of false documentation is in itself mysterious, and it serves as an indication that the possibility of two Oswalds is not such a wild idea after all."

 

THE TWO NAMES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and the POST OFFICE BOXES

There has always been a question as to Oswald's actual ownership of the murder weapon found at the TSBD. Was he the one who ordered it under the name of A. Hidell, a name he was supposed to have used both in New Orleans and Dallas? Did he know the rifle was in Ruth Paine's garage?

Jerry Rose has closely examined the question of Oswald's post office boxes--two in Dallas and one in New Orleans. It seems clear that there was collusion among postal authorities in what they told the police and the Warren Commission. The post office in Dallas could not produce the portion of Oswald's box application which said that "Hidell" could pick up mail from the box. Coming to this same box shortly was a rifle ordered by one "Hidell" from a mail order house in Chicago. The postal inspector, Harry Holmes "apparently misinformed the Warren Commission when he said postal regulations require that this part of the application be destroyed when the box is closed."

Worse, postal regulations required that any firearm ordered by mail must have forms filled out by both shippers and receivers that would be retained for four years by the post office (section 846.53a, March 1963). There are no such documents in the record. "The absence of a document that seemingly could prove conclusively that Oswald picked up the rifle from that box--his signed 'receipt' on form 2162--may in fact bark louder that all the spurious 'documentation' that has been so painstakingly provided," Rose writes. No one at the post office window ever remembered delivering anything like a package that might have contained a rifle to anyone using the name Hidell for Oswald's post office box. So it was never really proven that Oswald possessed the murder weapon at all, and since they could not prove that he fired the shots, the circumstantial evidence of his possession of the rifle falls to pieces.

Rose writes, with the usual prescience of a great detective understating the fact that the cat has the mouse in his mouth: "I am suggesting that the PO Box 2915 application, along with that for PO Box 30061 in New Orleans, was fabricated for purposes of incriminating Oswald as the sinister Hidell." To substantiate this thesis further, Rose shows possible forgery with regard to Oswald's second post office box in Dallas. We must take this together with evidence of other forged signatures and documents with regard to the elaborate but imperfect set up of Oswald as the Fall guy.

Then there is a problem with the postmark for the order Oswald allegedly sent to obtain the murder weapon. The postmark is for 10:30 a.m. on March 12, 1963 the day on which he obtained the money order to pay for the rifle. But Oswald was working for Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval that day and his time sheet accounts for each job he did that morning. The post office, some distance from where he worked, opened at 8 a.m. at the time when Oswald was logged in working at eight. Granted, somehow the time sheet might have been adjusted a bit or the post office was open earlier, but take into consideration that the job he was working on the longest that morning was for his employer's client, Sam Bloom, the man who later worked closely with the Secret Service to set up the motorcade and Kennedy's visit to Dallas eight months later. Sam Bloom was an "associate" of Jack Ruby, reputed to be Oswald's friend. Was the listing of an Oswald project for "Sam Bloom" on his time sheet a code phrase for any work that he did in connection with the conspiracy he was somehow involved in perhaps without knowing it?

HIDELL AGAIN

The official investigators state that the three cards supposedly found on Oswald when he was arrested and which bear the name "Alek Hidell" are forgeries, and they believed that Oswald might have fabricated them when he worked at Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval.

It is my belief along with many others that there were two Oswalds. Someone assumed the real Oswald identity for some intelligence purpose, and since the real Oswald seems to have been a self-proclaimed Marxist, he was marked from that point on to be incriminated in a crime that not only did he not commit, but which served someone else's purpose. Paramilitary outfits were abundant in those days, as perhaps they are today, and certainly networks of dissidents within the military and government agencies were often attracted to or ready to take up radical causes when the lawful administration of the nation became intolerable to them.

John Kennedy, barely elected by 100,000 votes over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, had come to be the hope of the world, and the most popular man in America. He would certainly have been re-elected, and this could not have been allowed by those who opposed him and who needed Lyndon Johnson to do their bidding. They needed the war Kennedy was withdrawing from. They also needed a patsy when they killed him, and Oswald was probably set up for this long before it happened. He and perhaps several others were identified as potential fall guys for whom the public would not care if they were accused of a terrible crime. All that was needed was to frame them, and to do that, construct a paper trail of a manufactured case that led to the patsy.

The name Alek Hidell served that purpose. "Several 'Hidell' identification papers supposedly found in Oswald's possession were also fabrications," Rose writes. There were three pieces of Hidell identification: A fabricated Selective Service Notice of Classification which had a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald and the name of Alek James Hidell on it. Trouble is, draft cards did not have photographs on them, and this one required the reduction of some of the text to put the photo on in the lower left hand corner. It was another signal.

The second was a Certificate of Service for Hidell's time in the military, and the third was a membership card for Oswald the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, which was signed by Hidell.

Were these cards forged by others, or did Oswald do it? If others did it, the purpose was to link him to "Alek Hidell's" mail order for the rifle and revolver used in the killings of Kennedy and Tippit. No one planning to kill someone would create an alias for themselves and then leave among his possession all the materials necessary to forge fake identification cards linking him directly to the mail order for the weapons sent to a post office box taken in Oswald's name (if he ever in fact rented the box). Film negatives were claimed to have been found among Oswald's stuff which were used to make two of the cards. A stamp kit was found there also which could stamp the date and his name. "Was there ever a more stupidly self-incriminating forger than this Oswald? Not only does he carry around credentials in the same name used to order the assassination rifle--with his picture on one of them to leave no doubt of his guilt. He leaves behind in easily accessible places all the paraphernalia used to carry out his forgeries!

Jerry Rose writes, "Even if one has faith in this level of Oswald's stupidity, one must deal with several circumstances suggesting that these Hidell documents were forged by others for the purpose of framing Oswald."

When Oswald was arrested the police never mentioned the Hidell identification cards. How did they know if the man they had was either Oswald or Hidell, if he had the Hidell cards on him? The arresting officers said on television that Oswald refused to give his name when they nabbed him in the Texas Theatre.

The Hidell Certificate of Service card was not listed on the FBI list as Oswald's possession, even though a police officer, Paul Bentley attested that they had taken the card from Oswald and turned it over with all of Oswald's papers at police headquarters. The Fair Play For Cuba card that they claimed Oswald had on him did not have the same date as the one found on him in New Orleans three or four months earlier. Since the police had a supply of blank cards and the stamps found at Oswald's place of abode, they might have faked this card. Or someone did.

 

PROFESSOR JERRY ROSE ON MORE DOUBLE-DEALING

Jerry Rose writes, "The 'case' against Lee Harvey Oswald as President Kennedy's assassin was built largely upon a pile of papers that connected Oswald to employment at the Texas School Book Depository, to the mail ordering of weapons to an alias at a Dallas post office box, etc. In addition, a paper trail pointing to possible Soviet and/or Castro Cuban involvement was generated by various documents linking the supposed assassin to the Soviet embassies in Washington and Mexico City and pro-Castro and Cuban government connections in New Orleans and in Mexico.

"The possibility that much of this documentation was forged by persons hoping to blame not only Oswald but his Soviet/Castro 'associates' is a possibility with a surprising amount of circumstantial evidential support." There is a strong likelihood that Oswald's registration at a hotel in Mexico City in 1963 two months before the assassination was forged, and I found the whole idea of the trip to Mexico not very credible. I can see the conspirators sending the unwitting Oswald to Mexico to leave a trail, while they faked the visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies for him, but I doubt that he himself did any of this. The fact that David Atlee Phillips of Fort Worth, who was an executive of the CIA at the time and who had every reason to hate John Kennedy, was stationed in Mexico City when all the evidence of Oswald's visit seems falsified is too coincidental. The photographs the CIA claimed to be Oswald coming out of one of these embassies turned out not to be of Oswald, even though they continued to make that claim, and the actual recordings of the so called Oswald telephoning those embassies were never produced. The Mexican receptionist present in the Cuban embassy was detained by police and pressured to claim that it was Oswald who came there, and this citizen was intimidated and mistreated.

The chairman of the House Assassinations Committee, Louis Stokes, and Congressman Richardson Preyer, along with a whole herd of investigators, traveled to Havana and met with Castro and the consul who was at the Cuban embassy, Sr. Eusebio Azcue. It was determined that these men were telling the truth when they said that Oswald was not the man who came to the embassy using his identity. The whole kit and caboodle smacks of an intelligence operation and Phillips was the man who could set it up. He certainly tried to destroy the HSCA in the Fall of 1976 before they ever got off the ground or had their term extended for the two vital years they needed.

Rose tells us that there was "a more-than-remote possibility that forgers operated on the various sets of Oswald fingerprint cards generated by the Dallas police department. These instances are actually the tip of a much larger iceberg of possible massive forgery in the Oswald identity papers."

If the signatures on his paychecks and on his passport applications which were used as known sources of his handwriting samples against which to check the authenticity of all other documents were themselves forged, then the entire paper trail framing Oswald for buying the rifle and revolver and establishing his movements may have been fabricated--with the help of the Dallas police. For those readers familiar with the case, they should again look at the chapters in George O'Toole's fine book, "The Assassination Tapes" dealing with the police and the Alek Hidell alias.

Oswald apparently did not have a bank account and so he cashed his pay checks at liquor stores and so on, which usually charged a small fee for cashing checks and did not require a purchase. Rose points out in "These Are A Few Of My Favorite Forgeries," numerous faults with the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall checks cashed at Mart Liquor store close by Oswald's place of employment. For example, Oswald's last pay check, #5811, issued April 10, 1963, but it is stamped by the bank "paid" for a day in March. How could a bank have it's date stamp wrong? "Is it not plausible to suggest that, sometime after these checks were gathered up following the assassination, this March, 1963 stamp, along with the Mart Liquor endorsements on checks #4922 and 5511 (and who knows what other alterations?) were made by someone with framing intentions?" Each check, in fact, has a problem.

As for Oswald's passport applications, there were two of them: One when he was discharged from the Marine Corps and needed a passport for his trip to the Soviet Union, and the second was applied for several years later in 1963 when the Warren Commission claimed he planned to return there. The first application lists a Marine Corps identification card having been shown when it was not issued until one week later. In addition, the name typed under Lee's name is for one "Leo H. Oswald," leading Rose to wonder if the name originally written above it by a forger was later erased and added again, this time reading "Lee" Oswald.

In the second application he makes a number of mistakes not expected of a person writing about himself and his family. He leaves out his father's middle initial (his father's name was Robert E. Lee Oswald, a name no Southerner would change by leaving out the "E") and misspells his mother's name, mistakes both their dates of birth, gives the wrong date of his own marriage to Marina, misspells Marina's maiden name, misspells the last name of his aunt in New Orleans, Lillian Murret, who had cared for him much of his childhood.

"Could or did Lee Harvey Oswald make this many 'mistakes' in his application for a passport in 1963? Possibly; but with all the other indications of tampering with Oswald identity documents, one has to wonder if this application was forged in Oswald's handwriting by a forger who was not that familiar with Oswald's biographical details--or who was instructed to make 'mistakes' without a firm knowledge of those mistakes that Oswald typically made."

As for Oswald's fingerprints, there are many strange things connected with them, from the fingerprints found on the cartons on the sixth floor, to those said to be taken from Oswald's corpse at the funeral home.

Fingerprints, of course, were taken from Oswald when he went into the Marine Corps, and a set was made when he was arrested in New Orleans for an altercation with an anti-Castro thug when he was handing out Fair Play For Cuba Committee leaflets, undoubtedly as a government stooge and provocateur. Two fingerprint sets were taken by the Dallas police when he was arrested for the murder of Tippit just after JFK was assassinated. The first time, Oswald refused to sign the fingerprint card. But there is a signature on another card, Commission Exhibit 627, which was authenticated by police officials Hicks and Barnes.

Prof. Rose has found still another fingerprint card in the National Archives, which may be a third set, "apparently" made later on the evening of November 22. This has a notation which says "refused to sign" and is authenticated by Karl Knight of the Dallas police. "The fugitive 'signature' on the card authenticated by Barnes and Hicks and indication of possible erasure of a signature on the one authenticated by Knight has led me to speculate on the possibility that these cards may fit into a broader pattern of possibly extensive forgery in the Oswald identity documents."************

The fingerprint card reproduced by the Warren Commission (CE 630) is dated November 25, the day after Oswald died. This card has the "refused to sign" legend. "Since Oswald had died on November 24, his uncooperativeness on the 25th is forgivable.

"The real question, of course, is why an 11/25 set of fingerprints would have been made, if indeed they were made on that date." Reader, get ready for this. Take a deep breath: "When the Warren Commission questioned FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona about this 'second submission' of fingerprints, Latona surmised that they were made 'in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been killed.'The FBI might have 'advised' itself of Oswald's death by turning on TV sets on Sunday morning like millions of others to watch his murder for themselves; but bureaucrats do have their ways, do they not?"

One might then get the idea that Oswald's corpse had been fingerprinted, and indeed, claims have been made that it happened. But the FBI's own manuel on fingerprinting seems to eliminate any chance that prints were made from the corpse because either the fingers have to be cut off to do it, or small papers, which we have no evidence of, are rolled on the fingers after ink has been applied, and these are attached to the fingerprint card. When the body was exhumed in 1981, eight fingers and two thumbs were present in the normal fashion.

"One possibility is that the prints were made before Oswald's death and were mis-dated for some dubious reason." That might be that the "palm print" on the rifle alleged to have been found upon examination of the rifle, after nothing was found on it by the FBI, was added on after the police had it. Persons employed at the funeral home where Oswald's body was claimed that "fingerprint technicians" had come to the home and left ink on Oswald's hands. Pressing his palm against the rifle barrel after removing the stock might not have been too difficult. Where was the rifle on November 25th? Or did they just lift the palm print with ink, and have a way of transferring it to the rifle? Was it really Oswald's palm print on the rifle? Was there ever a palm print on it? How come the FBI didn't find it?

What we have here are many hands trying to cook stew and making much confusion as only many different people can do when they aren't working as a team--when some are unwitting and blind to what others are doing.

Somehow I doubt that an area of the palm would leave a enough of a print on a very narrow rifle barrel sufficient for identification with any human being. Just my opinion! I'm entitled.

We all have thought at one time or another, including J. Edgar Hoover, that not only was someone impersonating Oswald in the many reports where he was not or could not be, but that in forging the paper used in framing Oswald, each of his fingerprint cards, for instance, was yanked from his file in the Marines, in New Orleans and so on, and redone with the fingerprints of someone else so that his palmprint could be put on the rifle and on the boxes in the sniper's window and elsewhere. Then the newly minted fingerprint card is signed by whomever is writing Oswald's name everywhere in the document factory in the basement of the CIA where Howard Hunt and his group ran each time they needed a new identity and papers for their illicite activities during the Watergate nightmare, and substituted in the files. Rose calls this a "fingerprint impersonator."

The Dallas police even claimed that the photo of the boxes in the window (CE 1301) had Oswald's finger and palm prints facing west, the direction of the fatal limousine, but this does not hold up too well when we have other photos showing how the boxes were moved about right from the start.

Another problem results from the publication of Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's book with an arrest report with an Oswald thumbprint on it, a routine police procedure. Yet there is no thumbprint on the same arrest report published by the Warren Commission. "I doubt that even S. Latona himself would suggest that Curry went to the Oswald grave days, months or even years after his death to obtain that thumbprint. So how did the 'Oswald' thumbprint get on Curry's copy of the Arrest Report; and why is the same print not on the Warren Commission copy?"

Still another thumbprint turned up on November 24th on a copy of the February 1963 issue of The American Rifleman, a magazine which is not on the lists of evidence found at Oswald's places of residence. The magazine had a coupon like the one used to order the alleged murder weapon, but it had been torn out. This magazine was probably found in New Orleans at Adrian Alba's garage where Oswald hung out across from the Reilly Coffee Company. Since Oswald could not have handled the magazine in months, if it came from Alba's garage, the fingerprints would have been gone. William turner writes that latent fingerprints are ephemeral, lasting anywhere from a few hours to several weeks. Rose writes, "We are apparently expected to believe that the thumbprint seen in the FBI laboratory in late November had been placed there no later than mid-July of 1963, since Oswald lost his job at Reilly's at that time and there is no indication that he ever went back to pass the time of day with Alba. . . and it becomes almost impossible to believe that a thumbprint left by Oswald on a piece of paper in the early summer of 1963 would have been located as late as November 23 or 24. On the other hand, it is somewhat credible that the person who on November 23 or 24 pressed his thumb on that page of The American Rifleman was the same person who so obligingly pressed his fingers against boxes in the shield of cartons 'pointing' toward the limousine, and on Chief Curry's copy of the Arrest Report, and who 'furnished' the 11/25 'refused to sign' fingerprints."

Actually, some police departments and prosecutors harbor degenerate, basically criminal characters masked behind police badges who are skilled at framing people and manufacturing evidence of all kinds. Worse are the prosecutors in much of the country who will do anything to win a case or convict someone they have no more than a hunch they did it. We could call this the "throw down syndrome" which means the propensity to place untraceable weapons kept in the trunk of a squad car for those times when police rage results in the death of an unarmed suspect gunned down in the terror of the moment or by mistake. A weapon found at the scene in the hand of the alleged gunman is all that is needed to prevent the cop's prosecution for murder.

Then there are all those who are framed, convicted, even executed of crimes they did not commit, just to clear the books.

 

TWO MARINA OSWALDS?

The House Select Committee on Assassinations printed a copy of Marina's application for a replacement for her Alien Registration card on pages 316-317 of Vol. 8, and did not ask their handwriting experts if it was in fact Marina's signature. It is strange that Marina went three months without this vital card before asking for a new one. The card was filled out by her husband, but is supposed to be signed by her. The signature does not at all correspond with her other known signatures. Neither are the signatures of the INS officials as they should be. Three procedures required for the issuance of the new cards were all performed by the same person, apparently, and not separate officials as required.

It is my belief that a major task assigned Oswald, the so-called "defector" to the Soviet Union, was to retrieve Marina Oswald, and bring her to the United States, for which he had to marry her. Oswald was not happy with this woman, who smoked too much. She might have been connected to Soviet intelligence, though probably unwittingly at that young age, through her uncle, and she had been visited by one of H.L. Hunt's sons, from Dallas, before she ever met Oswald. That was during a period when Armand Hammer, Hunt, and other American businessmen and industrialists were welcomed in the Soviet Union and who performed intelligence and diplomatic functions on the side.

So it would seem that this strange application for a new Alien Registration Card might have been facilitated by the same intelligence operation which brought her to the U.S., perhaps some form of cooperation between our agencies and those of the Soviet Union even then. Marina later paid off when she lied extensively to the Warren Commission, and to this day refuses to tell us the real story. The Warren Commission commented on what they believed to be her extensive lying.

It wasn't her fault. She was made to do it.

These days, Marina does not believe her husband killed the President.

 

TWO OSWALDS IN THE MILITARY?

One of the most fascinating aspects of creating the false Oswald is the question of just who was it in the military. Was his mother in the deal from the start? Not only did she insist that her son was working for military intelligence (which would have been the Office of Naval Intelligence) but that he was not really a defector in the Soviet Union and instead was a patriot. After all, a dozen other "defectors" went to Soviet Russia in the same time period, and all were retrieved two years later. All were from the Department of the Navy, that is, sailors or marines.

Oswald was supposed to be trained in aircraft mechanics, and he passed his first school in that line in Florida, but then he was yanked from his specialty and sent to Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi to undergo training in radar and related areas. The class to which Oswald and five others who traveled with him had been assigned had started eleven days earlier. I personally cannot imagine the military sending men to join a highly technical class that has already started that far ahead. But maybe it is S.O.P. Is that why planes crash from mechanical failure?

There are numerous problems with the documentation for Oswald's assignment at Keesler. None of the numbers the military gave the Warren Commission in the titles for the class and for their job title classification, even for the correct numbers in the title of the courses they took jibe with existing documents retained by one of the six men and shown to researcher Emory Brown.

Brown then found that Oswald's Student Record (TTAF Form 20) showed that he was attached to an Armored Amphibian Company in Gulfport, Mississippi. On investigation this turned out to be "administrative" and only for "record purposes." In other words, Oswald was never in Gulfport on this assignment. In addition, His Career Field Assignment code was 27, which did not exist, apparently. At first, Brown was told that the records had been routinely destroyed with the passage of time, but later he was given what he sought. Let us speculate that the "legend" or false identity that was being created for Oswald began then, when he was selected for intelligence training and operations. Some feel that it began even before he went into the service.

Brown has more than something to contribute to the story with this comment: "Do the Marines still send their people to take non-existent courses? What a waste of the taxpayer's money. What a lot of phoney baloney. The large number of Oswald's military records which made it into the exhibits of the Warren commission Report are in themselves proof that no routine regulatory destruction of his records ever took place. On October 31, 1959, an individual said to be Oswald walked into the American Embassy in Moscow and announced his defection. My copy of the Office of Naval Intelligence file indicates that they opened their file on him on November 1, 1959, which was long before such records (military) would have been scheduled for routine destruction. It seems only reasonable that several of the various intelligence/investigative agencies opened files on Oswald on or about that date and that every military command with which he had been associated had its files combed for any information on him. If any such records were destroyed, one can be certain that such was not the result of any established retention regulation.

"Those who have examined the evidence know that it indicates one or more individuals impersonated Oswald at various times in his life, especially during that last year and perhaps during and even before his trip to the Soviet Union. Could it have gone back as far as Keesler? Could the real Lee Harvey Oswald and a look-alike impostor have passed through the Marine Corps during those three years like ships passing in the night, slowly but steadily being drawn together until the guns of November ended the masquerade?

"On November 22, 1963, when Oswald's last assignment blew up in his face (and of those who were running him), they must have immediately recognized the urgency to severe any and all covert ties. How could they ever explain to an outsider's satisfaction their relationship with Oswald in such a way as not to be implicated in the assassination? Anyone in their shoes would have acted to cover their respective asses. . . History was rewritten, in this case, Oswald's history, and thus a man who may well have been a hero in some sense went to his grave in disgrace."

CONCLUSION

As George O'Toole long ago argued in his interesting book, The Assassination Tapes, the only way all this could work was with the cooperation of some Dallas police who were in a position to plant evidence in the case. There can be no doubt that the entire case was fabricated with planted evidence framing Oswald in several shootings.

To quote Professor Jerry Rose: "I can only reiterate my point that I have not proven anything by the recitation of a string of coincidences. The question, as always, is that of the point at which the reasonable mind rebels at accepting a host of coincidences and begins to demand that we look for the conspiratorial agency behind all these 'coincidental' happenings."

Certainly the immense problems with the autopsy and its forged evidence, along with the Oswald improbabilities and impersonators, and the problems of ballistics in both the Kennedy and the Tippit shootings--all of these overwhelm resistance to sure knowledge that the entire case was fabricated. Two of nearly every piece of evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.