1

HASTY JUDGMENT:

WHY THE JFK CASE IS NOT CLOSED

A REPLY TO GERALD POSNER'S

BOOK CASE CLOSED

Michael T. Griffith

2002

@All Rights Reserved

Third Edition

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Hyperlinked)

Introduction

Chapter 1: Smearing Oswald

Chapter 2: Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting

Chapter 3: Oswald and the Brown Paper Bag

Chapter 4: Arnold Rowland

Chapter 5: The Famous Backyard Rifle Photos

Chapter 6: A Discredited Witness and a Suspicious Palmprint

Chapter 7: The Alleged Murder Weapon and Oswald's Marksmanship

Chapter 8: Smoke on the Grassy Knoll

Chapter 9: The Dallas Doctors and the Medical Evidence

Chapter 10: The First Shot

Chapter 11: The "Second" Shot

Chapter 12: The Magic Bullet

Chapter 13: The Fatal Head Shot and the Zapruder Film

Chapter 14: The Jim Garrison Prosecution of Clay Shaw

Chapter 15: Oswald and David Ferrie

Chapter 16: Oswald, Guy Banister, and 544 Camp Street

Chapter 17: No Oswald Impersonations?

Chapter 18: Suspicious Deaths

Chapter 19: Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante

Chapter 20: The Case of Joseph Milteer

Chapter 21: Richard Case Nagell: Valuable Witness or Nut?

Chapter 22: The Murder of Officer Tippit

Chapter 23: Jack Ruby and the Killing of Oswald

Conclusion

3

Appendix A: Transcript of Interview of Photographic Laboratory Technician Brian Mee

Appendix B: Transcript of Jim Garrison's Reply to the June 19, 1967, NBC Documentary on His

Investigation

4

Introduction

In a Special Report in its August 30-September 6, 1993 issue, U.S. News & World Report

formally endorsed, and printed two extracts from, Gerald Posner's new book, Case Closed: Lee

Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (New York: Random House, 1993). On the

magazine's cover appeared the words "Case Closed" set against the background of a picture of

the President and his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy. The cover described Case Closed as "a brilliant

new book" that "proves who killed Kennedy." Turning to the book itself, we find strong

endorsements of it by William Styron, Stephen Ambrose, Tom Wicker, and David Wise. With all

the hoopla, the reader might get the impression that Posner has not only achieved some major

breakthroughs in the case, but that he's actually solved it. Unfortunately, nothing could be further

from the truth.

The most that can be said in Posner's defense is that he seems to discredit some peripheral

conspiracy arguments. But, when it comes to the central issues of the case--such as the direction

and number of the shots, the magic bullet, the medical evidence, Oswald's role, etc.--Posner

stumbles badly. Also, Posner advances many claims that have already been refuted. Case Closed

is essentially another ineffective defense of the Warren Commission's dubious single-assassin

theory.

5

Chapter 1

Smearing Oswald

Throughout his book Posner engages in an unfair attack on Lee Harvey Oswald. Posner's survey

of Oswald's childhood and teen years is especially distasteful (6:5-19). Posner relies heavily on

the negative statements that were made about Oswald to the Warren Commission, but he says

nothing about the emotion- charged, hate-filled atmosphere in which those comments were

made. Nor does Posner present to his readers any of the positive statements that were made about

Oswald. No, Oswald wasn't an angel by any means, far from it. But, he certainly wasn't the

demented ogre Posner paints him to be either (5:90-99; 15:185-192).

Buell Wesley Frazier, who regularly drove Oswald to work at the Book Depository, had this to

say about him when interviewed for the A & E Network's remake of Nigel Turner's documentary

The Men Who Killed Kennedy:

The individual that I know as Lee Harvey Oswald I don't think had it in him to be a

person capable of committing such a crime as murdering the President of the United

States. I'll always believe that. The side I saw of him was a very kind and loving man,

and that's the way I like to remember him.

In her highly acclaimed book Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher made the following

points about Oswald's character and reputation:

There is . . . no basis in any of the available medical or psychiatric histories for

allegations that Oswald was psychotic, aberrant, or mentally unsound in any degree. His

life history is consistent with the conclusion that he was a rational and stable personality

(which is not to say that he was appealing, admirable, or untroubled). He was capable of

marriage and fatherhood, with responsibility and devotion, particularly to his two

children. He was conscientious in his punctuality and work, completed military service

satisfactorily, paid his bills and repaid his debts promptly, and managed his practical

affairs capably.

Since there has been unrestrained "psychoanalysis of Oswald by amateurs who never

heard of Oswald before November 22, it is apropos to examine the judgments of those

who knew him, on the two key questions of (1) motivation and (b) capacity for violence.

His wife, star witness for the prosecution, considered Oswald "mentally sound, smart and

capable, not deprived of reason." (1 H 123)

Most members of the Russian-speaking community in Dallas, including those who were

not fond of Oswald, were astounded by the news of his arrest. Sam Ballen, for example,

was unable to conceive of Oswald harboring any hostility toward the President; it was his

impression that, on the contrary, Oswald had warm feelings for him. Oswald was

dogmatic but not mentally ill. Ballen, like George De Mohrenschildt, considered Oswald

a man "with no hatred in him." When he heard of Oswald's arrest, Ballen felt there must

6

have been a mistake. He did not believe Oswald capable of such a crime, in spite of the

force of the circumstantial evidence. (9 H 48-54)

George Bouhe was not an admirer of Oswald's. He regarded Oswald as "crazy," a mental

case. But it had never entered Bouhe's mind, he testified, that Oswald was capable of

such an act. (8 H 370) Everett Glover said that he had never questioned Oswald's mental

stability and did not consider him capable of violence. (10 H 20)

Anna Meller was "completely shocked" at the news of Oswald's arrest and could not

believe that he had done such a thing. (8 H 386-390) Elena Hall had never regarded

Oswald as dangerous or mentally unstable; she was incredulous when he was arrested. (8

H 405) Michael Paine (2 H 399), Paul Gregory (9 H 148) and George De Mohrenschildt

(9 H 255) testified that Oswald was an admirer of President Kennedy and had praised

him. Lillian Murret, Oswald's aunt, said that he had liked the President and admired his

wife. (8 H 153) Marilyn Murret, her daughter, confirmed that Oswald had spoken

favorably of the President. She felt strongly that Oswald was not capable of having

committed the assassination and that he had no motive for such an act; and she disagreed

completely with theories that Oswald resented authority or craved a place in history. (8 H

176-177)

None of Oswald's fellow Marines suggested that he was psychotic, violent, or homicidal.

Lt. Donovan saw no signs of any mental instability (although he found it unusual for

anyone to be so interested in foreign affairs). (8 H 299). . . .

Adrian Alba, who knew Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, said that he "certainly didn't

impress me as anyone capable or anyone burdened with a charge of assassinating the

President . . . let alone any individual, for that matter." (10 H 227) Tommy Bargas,

Oswald's former employer at the Leslie Welding Company, said that he had been a good

employee, with potential, and had shown no sign of temper or violence. (10 H 165) Helen

P. Cunningham, an employment counselor, had found no indication of emotional

problems in her contacts with Oswald. (10 H 128)

FBI Agent Quigley, who had interviewed Oswald after his arrest in New Orleans for

disturbing the peace [many have argued that he was unjustly arrested on this charge],

found absolutely no indication that he was dangerous or potentially violent. (4 H 438)

And the comments of Lt. Francis Martello, intelligence division (anti-subversion) of the

New Orleans Police Department, are especially memorable. He had interviewed Oswald

at length in August 1963 and had formed the impression that he liked President Kennedy.

He considered Oswald not to be potentially violent.

". . . not at all. Not in any way, shape, or form violent . . . as far as ever dreaming or

thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged that he has done, I would bet my head

on a chopping block that he wouldn't do it." (10 H 60-61) (17:245-246)

As part of his effort to portray Oswald as a glory-seeking, lackluster, Marxist Marine, Posner

uses the unflattering testimony of Kerry Thornley, who says he was a friend of Oswald's in the

Marine Corps (6:22, 30-31, 33). In fact, Posner derives the title for his second chapter, "The Best

Religion Is Communism," from a statement that Thornley alleges Oswald made to him while

7

they were in the Marines together (6:30). The reader might be interested to know this is the same

Kerry Thornley who claims he was a Nazi breeding experiment and who says that a bugging

device was planted on him at birth so that Nazi cultists could monitor him as he grew up (39:3-

21). Thornley believes Oswald was a Nazi breeding experiment too (39:18-19).

Lee Harvey Oswald Buell Wesley Frazier

Posner fails to mention other things about Thornley as well, even in the more recent paperback

edition of Case Closed. Thornley wrote a novel based on Oswald's attempted defection in

Moscow in the autumn of 1959. Titled The Idle Warriors, this fictionalized portrait of a

disenchanted Marine in peacetime Japan who defects to Russia was completed well over a year

before the assassination. The unpublished manuscript was turned over to the Warren

Commission, and wound up in the National Archives. It was published for the first time in 1991

by IllumiNet Press. After his release from the Marines, Thornley moved to New Orleans, where

he says he participated in a number of discussions advocating the assassination of JFK. When

called before the Warren Commission in 1964, Thornley described in detail his relationship with

Oswald, but omitted the incriminating conversations he'd had with others. In 1964, Thornley

wrote Oswald, an account based on his single-assassin theory. However, in 1965 Thornley

changed his mind and decided Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy. In 1968, New Orleans

District Attorney Jim Garrison accused Thornley of meeting with Oswald in the French Quarter

in 1963. Summoned before the Grand Jury, Thornley testified that he had not seen Oswald since

1959, and he was then charged with perjury by Garrison. Thornley claims he met three men who

were soon widely suspected of involvement in the plot to kill JFK, namely, David Ferrie, Guy

Banister, and Clay Shaw, and that both Banister and Shaw had expressed an unusual degree of

interest in his book The Idle Warriors. By 1975, Thornley says the Watergate revelations

convinced him that his most important link to the assassination was not Oswald, but the two

8

shadowy figures of the French Quarter known as Slim Brooks and Brother-in-Law, who had

discussed killing Kennedy with him for a period of over three years. Thornley says one of these

men bore a striking resemblance to one of the Watergate burglars, and the other answered the

description of one of Guy Banister's anti-Castro coordinators. One would hope that this

information would be included in Posner's section on Thornley in any future edition of Case

Closed.

Noticeably absent from Posner's book is any discussion of a plausible motive for Oswald to have

killed Kennedy. If Oswald supposedly wanted to kill Kennedy to achieve fame or to further

some political cause in which he passionately believed, why didn't he behave as other

presidential assassins have usually behaved after he was taken into custody? Why, then, did

Oswald heatedly and repeatedly deny shooting Kennedy?

Posner frequently quotes Marina Oswald, yet he neglects to tell his readers that Marina has

always said her husband thought very highly of President Kennedy. In addition, although Posner

relies heavily on Marina's clearly coerced and contradictory Warren Commission testimony, he

waits until page 345 to inform his audience, in a footnote, that Marina now believes her husband

was "completely innocent."

Posner tries hard to prove that Oswald had no U.S. intelligence connections (6:20-196). By

ignoring a good deal of evidence, and by failing to adequately address the implications of certain

unusual incidents in Oswald's life, Posner almost seems to prove his point. However, those

familiar with the subject will find Posner's arguments unconvincing and incomplete. The late

Senator Richard Schweiker from Pennsylvania declared,

I personally believe that he [Oswald] had a special relationship with one of the

intelligence agencies, which one I'm not certain. But all the fingerprints I found during

my eighteen months on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence point to Oswald as

being a product of, and interacting with, the intelligence community. (14:266)

In addition, three former U.S. intelligence agents maintain that Oswald was working for at least

one U.S. intelligence agency.

After he was arrested on the day of the assassination, Oswald tried to call a man named "Hurt" in

Raleigh, North Carolina, at two different numbers listed for that name. Oswald had no known

contacts or friends in North Carolina. Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti points out that

Oswald's call was made to a number in the same general area as a base where, according to

Marchetti, Naval Intelligence once planned infiltration missions into the Soviet Union (14:146).

One of the two Hurts in Raleigh at that time was a John D. Hurt, who had worked in military

intelligence during World War II. Oswald was reportedly unable to contact Mr. Hurt because two

Secret Service agents instructed the switchboard operator at the Dallas police station to unplug

the connection before the call could go through (14:146). Marchetti believes Oswald worked for

the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and that it was the ONI which sent him to Russia as a

phony defector. (For further information on the Hurt phone call, see 71:244-245.)

Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi reports that he found strong evidence of an Oswald-

CIA connection. Says Fonzi,

9

There is . . . a preponderance of evidence that indicates Lee Harvey Oswald had an

association with a U.S. Government agency, perhaps more than one, but undoubtedly

with the Central Intelligence Agency (61:408).

Fonzi discusses a great deal of this evidence in his book The Last Investigation (New York:

Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993). In his recent book Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll and

Graf Publishers, 1995), Professor John Newman, a former Major in Army Intelligence, citing

information gleaned from newly released assassination documents, discusses evidence of an

Oswald-CIA link. Among other things, Professor Newman says the following:

We need to discuss one more document before turning our attention to Oswald's trip to

Mexico City. On September 16, 1963, the CIA "informed" the FBI that the "Agency is

giving some consideration to countering the activities of [the Fair Play for Cuba

Committee, i.e., the FPCC] in foreign countries." In one of the many suspicious

coincidences of this case, the next day Oswald was standing in line to get his Mexican

tourist visa. He would take his FPCC literature and news clippings of his FPCC activities

with him. In the CIA's memo to the FBI, they said they were interested in "planting

deceptive information which might embarrass the [FPCC] Committee in areas where it

does have some support." A week later Oswald boarded a bus for Mexico City, where he

would present himself as an officer of the FPCC and use his FPCC card as identification

in an attempt to obtain a visa to get to Cuba. This raises the possibility that Oswald's trip

was part of a CIA operation or an FBI operation linked to the CIA's request. . . .

The record of Oswald's stay in New Orleans, May to September 1963, is replete with

mistakes, coincidences, and other anomalies. As Oswald engaged in pro-Castro and anti-

Castro activities, the FBI says they lost track of him. The Army was monitoring his

activities and says it destroyed their reports. The record of his propaganda operations in

New Orleans published by the Warren Commission turned out to have been deliberately

falsified. A surprising number of the characters in Oswald's New Orleans episode turned

out to be informants or contract agents of the CIA. (80:351, 427)

10

Chapter 2

Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting

Posner follows the Warren Commission in placing Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas School

Book Depository Building from 11:55 A.M. until he supposedly fired the shots at 12:30 P.M.

Therefore, according to Posner, Oswald had thirty-five minutes to build the sniper's nest.

However, Posner's only in-building witness to put Oswald alone on the sixth floor before the

shooting is Charles Givens, who said he saw Oswald there, at 11:55, after everyone else had left

(6:226-228).

Yet, it is common knowledge among assassination researchers that when Givens was initially

questioned, he mentioned nothing about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else had

left. In fact, Givens, who had a police record involving narcotics, originally told the authorities

he saw Oswald reading a newspaper on the first floor at 11:50 (14:75). Two other TSBD workers

likewise put Oswald on the first floor from 11:50 to 12:00 (17:68). And, Book Depository

employee Bonnie Ray Williams told the Warren Commission that he ate lunch on the sixth floor

from around noon until 12:15, perhaps even until 12:20, and that he saw no one else on the floor.

This was, at the most, just fifteen minutes before the President's motorcade passed in front of the

Depository. Even if Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15, Oswald still would not have had

enough time to construct the sniper's nest, reassemble the Carcano rifle, and arrange the

supposed gun-rest boxes before the motorcade arrived (and, keep in mind, too, that the

motorcade was scheduled to pass the TSBD at 12:25, and Oswald would have had no way of

knowing that it was going to be five minutes late). Furthermore, Depository employee Carolyn

Arnold told a journalist in 1978 that she saw Oswald eating lunch in the second-floor lunchroom

at around 12:15 or later (14:77).

Texas School Book Depository Alleged “Sniper’s Nest” on the Sixth Floor

11

In response to this evidence, Posner observes that Williams "told the FBI he left [the sixth floor]

by 12:05 and went to the fifth floor" (6:228)--end of discussion. As for Mrs. Arnold's testimony,

Posner dismisses it because in her first of two 1963 FBI depositions she was quoted as saying

she thought she might have caught a glimpse of Oswald in a hallway on the first floor, and in the

second statement, according to Posner, she said she had not seen him at all (6:227)--again, end of

discussion. Or is it?

This brings us to a crucial flaw in Posner's arguments. Posner attempts to discredit several

witnesses whose testimony contradicts the lone-gunman scenario by citing differences between

their FBI or Dallas police depositions and their statements to the Warren Commission, or

between accounts they provided in later years and their earlier testimony. Yet, as Posner must

know, numerous witnesses subsequently insisted that federal agents or the Dallas police, or both,

altered or even fabricated their statements. Assassination-related documents disclosed by

Freedom of Information Act suits have revealed undeniable instances of evidence tampering by

the FBI. Several witnesses complained that they were pressured to change their testimony by

federal agents or the Dallas police. Posner quotes from books that thoroughly document these

facts, but he does not bring this information to the attention of his readers.

For the most part, Posner summarily dismisses the recollections of witnesses with evidence of

conspiracy if they did not speak up immediately or shortly after the shooting. But nearly all

researchers would agree that this is not a sound criterion for rejecting testimony relating to the

assassination. Many witnesses who had information favoring Oswald or contradicting the single-

assassin story were afraid to go public with what they knew because of the charged anti-Oswald

atmosphere at the time. Some conspiracy witnesses weren't aware of the significance of what

they had seen until after the Warren Commission published its report, and, faced with the nearly

universal acceptance the report initially enjoyed, they chose to remain silent for fear of being

ridiculed. In addition, several witnesses later said they were hesitant to come forward because

they knew that other witnesses had died under strange circumstances or had been murdered.

Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams and Carolyn Arnold. First of

all, when the Warren Commission asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the

FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to

give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20

(4:103). Former Warren Commission member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just

minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm" (73:330).

As for Carolyn Arnold's testimony, for starters, Mrs. Arnold, as Posner should know, never told

the FBI that she didn't see Oswald at all that day. What she said was that she did not see him at

the time of the assassination. British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the

following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold:

When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear

how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been

misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at

given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--

spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that

memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had

been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told

12

the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said:

"About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom

on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the

right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be

having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has

reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a

craving for a glass of water. (14:77)

Four other women worked with Mrs. Arnold and watched the motorcade with her that day.

"They," claims Posner, "support her original statements and not the story she told fifteen years

later" (6:227). Yet Posner only provides testimony from two of the four women, continuing,

"Virgie Rachley and Betty Dragoo accompanied her when she left the second floor" and they

"did not see Oswald" (6:227). But they did not go into the lunchroom with Mrs. Arnold when she

stopped off to get a glass of water.

"Joe Molina and Mrs. Robert Reid," says Posner, "both ate in the second-floor lunchroom and

were there at 12:15, when Carolyn Arnold claimed Oswald was there, but neither saw him"

(6:227- 228). But Mrs. Arnold, as will be discussed shortly, might have seen Oswald in the

lunchroom a little later than she thought she did, or, she might have even erred about the floor on

which her sighting occurred. Also, it should be kept in mind that some witnesses clearly seemed

to later change their stories in ways that tended to incriminate Oswald, and, as mentioned,

statements taken from witnesses by FBI agents were not always recorded accurately. In addition,

several witnesses who gave testimony to the Warren Commission complained that the transcript

of their testimony was inaccurate.

Oswald's reported interrogation replies to the police suggest that Mrs. Arnold might have seen

him in the second-floor lunchroom a little later than 12:15. Mrs. Arnold, who left her office at

right around 12:15, allowed that it might have been after 12:15 when she stopped in the

lunchroom. Or, was Mrs. Arnold right about the time but wrong about the floor on which she

saw Oswald? Remember that in her first FBI deposition she was quoted as saying she had seen

Oswald on the first floor. Also, in her first deposition Mrs. Arnold said she saw Oswald AT

12:25. It's possible that Mrs. Arnold originally told the FBI that she saw Oswald in the domino

room on the first floor, but that the deposition was worded so as to suppress this fact. If so, this

would suggest that Mrs. Arnold might have confused her floors when she spoke with Summers

in 1978. Again, in her first deposition, she said she saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.

Oswald allegedly told the police that he ate lunch in the domino room on the first floor (which

was often used as a lunchroom by employees), and that he went upstairs to the second-floor

lunchroom to buy a Coke and had just finished getting the Coke from the soda machine when

Officer Marrion Baker approached him and asked him to identify himself. Three witnesses,

Eddie Piper, Bill Shelley, and Charles Givens, reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between

11:50 and 12:00 (19 H 499; 6 H 383; 7 H 390; CD 5; 14:76-77). There is other evidence that

supports Oswald's story, as Summers explains:

Under interrogation, Oswald insisted he had followed his workmates down to eat [from

the fifth floor, where he and others had been working that morning]. He said he ate a

snack in the first- floor lunchroom [the domino room] alone but that he remembered two

black employees walking through the room while he was there. Oswald believed one of

13

them was a colleague known as "Junior" and said he would recognize the other man

although he could not recall his name. He did say the second man was "short." There

were two rooms in the Book Depository where workers had lunch, the "domino room" on

the first floor and the lunchroom proper on the second floor. There was indeed a worker

named "Junior" Jarman, and he spent his lunch break largely in the company of another

black man called Harold Norman. Norman, who was indeed "short," said later he ate in

the domino room between 12:00 and 12:15 p.m., and indeed he thought "there was

someone else in there," though he couldn't remember who. At about 12:15, Jarman

walked over to the domino room, and together the two black men left the building for a

few minutes. Between 12:20 and 12:25--just before the assassination--they strolled

through the first floor once more, on the way upstairs to watch the motorcade from a

window. If Oswald was not indeed on the first floor at some stage, he demonstrated

almost psychic powers by describing two men--out of a staff of seventy-five--who were

actually there. (14:76)

Bill Lovelady, Danny Arce, and Bonnie Ray Williams, like Oswald, had been working upstairs

that morning. All three told the Commission that Oswald was anxious for them to send the

elevator back up to him when it was time for lunch, and one of them specified that Oswald said

he would be coming downstairs. A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw

Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald

on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at

right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen

by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his

lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came

back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20.

The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the

motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the

sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish

building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then

reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an

assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any

boxes being moved in the sniper's nest.

If Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, then how is it he

was seen by the building manager and a pistol-waving Officer Baker less than ninety seconds

afterwards on the second floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every

appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed?

Jim Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the

encounter with the manager and the policeman (3:53). However, the available evidence indicates

Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (5: 50-52). Oswald had no reason

to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his

questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of

this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said

on this subject:

14

The original news accounts said that when Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was

drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to

operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on

the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed

statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the

investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line

was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas]

Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked

Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second

floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in."

If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and

indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (18:351)

During a radio program on December 23, 1966, Albert Jenner, a former senior Warren

Commission counsel, said that when Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom, Oswald was holding a

Coke in his hand. Said Jenner, "the first man this policeman saw, was Oswald with a bottle of

Coke" (17:226). The fact that Oswald was holding a Coke when Baker confronted him in the

lunchroom was one of the details that Chief Jesse Curry of the Dallas police mentioned to

reporters the day after the shooting. As late as ten days later this detail was still being reported in

major newspapers, such as The Washington Post.

Oswald simply could not have made it to the second floor without first being seen by Roy Truly,

who was running ahead of Patrolman Baker. The Dallas police descriptions of the rifle in its

hiding place indicate that the alleged murder weapon was very carefully stashed under and

between a stack of book boxes at the opposite end of the sixth floor from where the shots were

supposedly fired. It is reasonable to assume Oswald would have attempted to wipe his

fingerprints off the rifle (at least those parts of the rifle he had just handled while firing it). It

appears someone wiped off the Carcano before it was "discovered" because the FBI found no

identifiable prints on it when it examined the weapon on November 23.

This would mean that in well under ninety seconds Oswald squeezed out of the sniper's nest, ran

all the way to the opposite end of the sixth floor, wiped off the rifle (at least those parts that he

would have just handled while firing it), carefully hid it under and between some boxes, ran

down four flights of stairs to the second floor (actually eight small flights), went through the

foyer door, and then made his way to the lunchroom, yet did not appear the least bit winded or

nervous when seen by the manager and the policeman. And, if we add the Coke-buying,

Oswald's alleged journey becomes even more implausible.

The Warren Commission's own reenactments of Officer Baker's encounter with Oswald indicate

the encounter occurred no more than seventy-five seconds after the shots were fired. There is no

way Oswald could have done everything the Commission said he did and still have made it to the

lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker and without being seen by Truly.

Photographic experts retained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)

claimed that photos taken of the sixth-floor window less than two minutes after the shooting

show the boxes being rearranged (5:53). I quote from the HSCA testimony of photographic

expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt:

15

Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the staff to put up JFK F-153. As I understand it,

Doctor, this is a picture that was taken a few seconds after the shot; is that correct?

Dr. HUNT. I am not sure until I see the picture. Which one are you referring to?

Mr. FITHIAN. I believe that is the one of the---TSBD?

Dr. HUNT. Oh, yes, right. Yes; in answer to your question, that was taken a few seconds

after the last shot was fired. at least that is Dillard's testimony to the Warren

Commission, I believe.

Mr. FITHIAN. Now, directing your attention to that particular exhibit, the photograph in

the area of the sixth floor window, the open window, there seems to be a change in the

configuration of the boxes. How did the photo panel account for this?

Dr. HUNT. The change in configuration of the boxes with respect to what, with respect to

another window view?

Mr. FITHIAN. No, with respect to other photos that you analyzed.

Dr. HUNT. OK. Probably the one most pertinent to that would be exhibit which is

showing next to it at the moment--I am not aware of the exhibit number for it--but that

shows the same window, taken approximately one to two minutes after the first picture

which we talked about, the one taken by Dillard on the right, the one by Powell on the

left.

You are correct in perceiving that there is something which we could ascribe to a change

in the configuration of the boxes.

For example, the picture on the right, we see only two boxes, one at the left of the

window sill and just a corner of the one peeping up at the right of the window sill.

Whereas, in the picture, the enlarged picture, for example, on the left, we see not just the

two boxes; you can still see, for example, on the left there is the same small box at the

left, there is the same corner peeping up at the right. But now we have two or three other

boxes, apparently rising up in between them.

There are two possible explanations, I guess, for that, that the panel considered. One is

that we are seeing boxes which are in the room, but because of our perspective, our line

of sight, is different, we are seeing different boxes than were visible in the other picture.

The second explanation is that there has been physically a movement of the boxes in the

room during the time which elapsed between the taking of those pictures.

Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Now there is no way that we can know which it is?

Dr. HUNT. There are ways of eliminating or narrowing down the possibilities between

those two choices. For example, given the geometry at which you are viewing, and given

the apparent sunlight on the boxes, you could probably guess how far into the room those

boxes do lie.

16

For example, if you look at the two boxes which appear to have been introduced in the

picture on the left, they appear to be in full sunlight, which means they must not lie too

far inside the room because this was high noon, in November; the sun angle is simply not

that low in Dallas at high noon in November to shine sunlight very deep into the room.

So they can certainly not be too far behind the plane of the window; and that would

therefore tend to rule out the possibility that we are looking at the box which lies in one

position in the room and is simply tended to be viewed in different perspective from two

different viewing points.

Mr. FITHIAN. You say it rules that out?

Dr. HUNT. It tends to rule it out, yes. It does not rule it out completely, because we lack

what is usually referred to as the analytical information, from the position of the two

photographers to precisely plot the positions of those boxes by stereoanalysis techniques.

Mr. FITHIAN. Well, if it generally tends to rule that out, then it seems this committee

would be left with only one conclusion, and that is, that a box was actually moved.

Dr. HUNT. That would be my only personal conclusion, that somebody or something

moved boxes around in that room during the time of taking of those two pictures. (4

HSCA 422-423, emphasis added)

Indeed, the Committee's photographic panel concluded, "There is an apparent rearranging of

boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). The

photographic panel went into more detail in its report:

Examination of both the Dillard and Powell photographs of the sixth floor windows

shows an open window with deep shadows in the region behind it. The deep shadows

indicate the film was underexposed in these regions; that is, too little light reached the

film or a clear recording of any details in the room behind the window.

A number of enhancement processes were applied to the photographs in order to bring

out any details obscured within the underexposed regions. They were as follows:

(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical and photochemical techniques) of the

underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken at the Rochester Institute of

Technology (RIT).

(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph

at Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI).

(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Powell photograph at the

University of Southern California and the Aerospace Corp.

In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned and digitized for possible computer

enhancement. Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed because the Panel

decided that the autoradiographic technique had more potential for success.

The photographic and computer processes made visible details that had been obscured in

the underexposed regions of the photographs. Both the photographic enhancement by

17

RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement by SRI revealed a feature in the fifth floor

window immediately beneath the sixth floor window. Figure IV-1 (JFK exhibit F-153)

shows one of the. original Dillard photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic

enhancement. The detail revealed by the processing appears to be a circular light fixture

hanging from the ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in the center of the

fixture.

In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details became visible on the boxes in the

windows. (See figure IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in neither photograph did

the processing operations reveal any sign of a human face or form in the open sixth floor

or adjoining windows.

The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed in the fifth window served as a

"benchmark" against which the sixth floor enhancement could be judged. . . .

Although human faces or forms were not visible in the enhanced photographs, inspection

of figures IV-2 and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes visible through the sixth floor

widow. in the Dillard photograph, only two boxes are immediately visible, one each to

the left and right of the window frame. Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows

several additional boxes. There are two possible explanations for this difference:

(1) The Powell photograph may reflect only an apparent change in the boxes; the

different angle from which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a different set

of boxes within the room to be framed within the window;

(2) The boxes were moved during the time that elapsed between the Dillard and Powell

photographs.

Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were

unknown, it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room

that would have been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two to

the left and right of the window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no

shadows cast on them by the frame of the partially opened window. In the Powell

photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full sunlight, with no shadow cast on

them by the window frame.

A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the two boxes at the left and right lie

approximately 6 inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A). If full sunlight is

falling on the additional boxes in question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie

close to the plane of the window. For this reason, the panel concluded that the additional

boxes visible in the Powell photograph were moved during the interval between the

Dillard and Powell photographs. (6 HSCA 110-115, emphasis added)

An interesting and important footnote to the panel's finding of box movement in the window is

the reported discovery of a suppressed FBI report about a witness who saw boxes being moved

in the sixth-floor window after the shooting. Author and researcher David Lifton states,

In documents I obtained from the Archives in 1968 was an FBI report which said that a

witness at a window on an upper floor of a nearby building had told a Dallas lawyer she

saw "some boxes moving" in the window from which the shots allegedly came. (18:367)

18

Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes because he was seen on the second floor

by Baker and Truly less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired (5:53). So, who was

moving the boxes around less than two minutes after the shooting? Whoever it was, it wasn't

Oswald.

Not only were boxes possibly being rearranged within minutes of the shooting, but law clerk

Lillian Mooneyham, looking at the sixth-floor window from a nearby building, saw a man in that

window three to five minutes after the assassination. Although Mrs. Mooneyham reported this to

the FBI, she was not called as a witness by the Warren Commission.

When Oswald was being held at the Dallas police station, he told reporters, "I didn't shoot

anybody." The news tapes of Oswald's denial were examined by a researcher using the

Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), which is a lie-detecting device that measures stress by

voice stress analysis. The PSE has been shown to be reliable in several tests. It is used by

hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies, and it is accepted as evidence in more than a dozen

states. The PSE tests done on Oswald's denial indicate he was telling the truth (2:349; on the PSE

test itself, see 25:206 n).

19

Chapter 3

Oswald and the Brown Paper Bag

According to the Warren Commission, Oswald was seen carrying a "long and bulky package"

into the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. The Commission said this package contained

the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

The Warren Commission claimed this bag was the same one that was reportedly found in the

sniper's nest. The Commission further asserted that federal authorities found cloth fibers on the

bag which matched those of a blanket said to have been used to wrap the Mannlicher- Carcano.

Posner repeats these claims (6:224 n).

Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley

Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building.

Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to work that morning, said Oswald came into the TSBD

carrying a brown paper bag under his arm. The apparent conflict is most likely explained by the

fact that Frazier said Oswald was carrying the package with one cupped in his palm and the other

end tucked into his armpit. Thus, when Dougherty saw Oswald enter the building, he simply

couldn't see the package because it was not visible to him.

The Warren Commission, of course, accepted Frazier's story--more or less. The Commission had

some problems with Frazier's account, problems which still present themselves to lone-gunman

theorists. The thorniest of these problems is that Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the

bag refutes the idea that it contained a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. As mentioned, Frazier

said Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his

armpit. However, from the cup of Oswald's hand, a disassembled Carcano would have extended

well past his shoulders, and probably close to his ear (4:144-145). Frazier insisted he recalled

quite specifically how Oswald carried the bag.

Frazier added that Oswald was carrying the bag in such a way that it would have been difficult to

see it from the front. This, as mentioned, could explain why Jack Dougherty did not see anything

in Oswald's hands. Nevertheless, the Warren Commission said Frazier was mistaken about the

way Oswald carried the paper bag. Why? Because Oswald could not have held a disassembled

Mannlicher-Carcano in the manner Frazier described.

Another problem the Warren Commission had with Frazier's testimony was that he said the

paper bag was at least eight inches shorter than a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. Frazier told

the Warren Commission that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about two feet long, and that it

was the kind "you get out of the grocery store" (4:144). Posner says the bag was 38 inches long

(6:225 n). On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of

his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The

agents maintained that the distance between that spot and the door was 27 inches. Frazier's sister,

Linnie Randle, who saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long. But Oswald's measurements

20

indicate the bag would have needed to be less than 24 inches long in order for him to have

carried it in the manner described by Frazier (4:144).

Furthermore, when disassembled the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned by Oswald is 35

inches long. Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, not only was the bag too long for

Oswald to have carried it in the manner Frazier himself described, but the bag was at least eight

inches shorter than a disassembled Carcano rifle. In response to this dilemma, the Commission

said that both Frazier and his sister were mistaken about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on

Frazier's admission that he wasn't absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores

the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried it, while dismissing the fact that

both Frazier and his sister said the bag was right around 27 inches long.

Posner would have us believe that Frazier and his sister were off by at least eight inches in their

descriptions of the bag's length. In fact, according to Posner, Frazier might have erred by a

whopping 14 inches when he estimated the bag's length at one point during the Commission's

hearings, an extremely doubtful proposition.

Federal authorities said they found cloth fibers on the bag that matched those of a blanket which

was allegedly used to wrap the Mannlicher-Carcano. But a Dallas police photograph of

assassination evidence "shows the bag touching the blanket, thus producing the incriminating

fiber evidence" (5:448). Also, the FBI found no traces of paper bag particles on the alleged

murder weapon (5:448).

The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper

available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI report written shortly after the

assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and

found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (5:449, emphasis added).

But the "corrected version" of this FBI report said, "This paper was examined and found to have

the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the

contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along

to the Warren Commission." As Marrs observes, "this incident raises the question of how many

other assassination documents stated one thing and were subsequently 'revised.' And if there do

exist 'revised' documents in federal files, how would anyone know unless the originals

accidentally slip out, as in this case?" (5:449).

If the brown paper bag was used to carry the Carcano, it is odd that no traces of oil were found

on it, since the rifle was well oiled when it was discovered. In fact, when the Carcano was

examined by the FBI the day after the shooting, oil was found on surface of the rifle. Yet, not

only did the bag contain no oil traces, but it showed no creases that matched the outline of the

alleged murder weapon (68:66).

But wasn't the paper bag found in the sniper's nest? If it was, then it is astonishing that it wasn't

photographed there along with the three shells and the boxes that were allegedly used as a gun

rest. Not only did Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who were supposed to

take crime-scene pictures, inexplicably "fail" to photograph the bag in the sniper's nest, but the

bag does not appear in any of the photos that were taken of the nest on the afternoon of the

shooting. There are photos of the shells in the nest, and photos of the gun-rest boxes, but not one

21

of these pictures shows the bag, even though most of them show the area where the bag was

allegedly lying.

Some Warren Commission apologists have offered the admittedly weak suggestion that Day and

Studebaker didn't photograph the bag in the nest because no one "pointed it out to them." This is

surely an unbelievable theory. The bag would have been in plain view; the policemen would

have hardly needed anyone to "point it out" to them. The other explanation is that the bag was

removed before photos could be taken of it. Aside from being suspiciously convenient, this

explanation immediately raises the question of why anyone would have moved the bag before it

could be photographed. Furthermore, the testimony of the police officers at the scene is highly

contradictory on the issue of when the bag was moved (as well as on such matters as where the

bag was located, what it looked like, what else was lying beside it, and whether it was a "bag" at

all). In addition, these policemen surely knew better than to move a piece of evidence before it

had been photographed at the crime scene.

22

Chapter 4

Arnold Rowland

As mentioned, Arnold Rowland insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the

sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16. To further complicate matters for the Warren Commission's story,

Rowland said he was certain that the gunman he saw was located at the southwest corner

window, not the southeast corner window, i.e., at the opposite end of the building from the

window from which Oswald allegedly fired. Rowland added that after he saw the man at around

12:15, he did not see him again. At the time Rowland, logically enough, assumed the man was a

Secret Service agent. Rowland's wife was standing next to him, but she was looking elsewhere

when her husband spotted the man with the rifle. Rowland immediately attempted to get his wife

to look at the man, but she was distracted and by the time she looked up the man was gone. Mrs.

Rowland confirmed that her husband drew her attention to the man.

Arnold Rowland

Posner strongly attacks Rowland's credibility (6:229-230), but time and time again Rowland

proved himself to be a careful observer and a credible witness--not a perfect witness, but a

credible one. According to Posner, Rowland said the crowds started to laugh after the first shot.

"No one else," says Posner, "reported such a reaction" (6:230). But this is not really what

Rowland reported, as Posner surely should have gathered from reading Rowland's testimony.

What Rowland said was that many of the people around him started to laugh, or "chuckle," at the

sound of the first shot because they mistook it for a firecracker or something (2 H 179). Rowland

added that the only bystanders who did this were those who couldn't see the motorcade. It is a

well-known fact that many witnesses did indeed mistake the first shot for a firecracker.

Posner complains that Rowland said the gunman was standing at "military parade rest with a

high-powered rifle across his chest" (6:230). Actually, Rowland said the position was similar to

the port arms position, not parade rest, meaning that the man was holding the rifle at a 45-degree

23

angle across his chest (2 H 170). Rowland specified that at no time did the man assume the

parade rest position.

Posner attacks Rowland because he said there were women and children on the triple underpass

(6:230). Rowland explained that he was accustomed to using the term "triple underpass" to refer

to Dealey Plaza, and that that was how he had always referred to the area, as "the triple

underpass" (2 H 167). At one point, when Rowland was referring to the underpass itself, he used

the term "viaduct" (2 H 174). There were, moreover, a few women and children on the knoll next

to the underpass (northeast of it). Rowland might have been referring to them.

When Rowland mentioned seeing policemen, three women, and two children on the underpass,

he qualified his statement by noting that he was over 100 yards away and could not see them

"with detailed distinction" (2 H 178). Rowland indicated that he only looked toward the

underpass two or three times (2 H 179). There were between fourteen and eighteen people

standing on the underpass prior to the shooting. Moments after the shots rang out, some men,

women, and children ran to the triple underpass, and perhaps this sight led Rowland to later

recall that he had seen a few women and children on the underpass before the shooting occurred.

Posner claims that in seven previous statements to the Dallas police and to the FBI Rowland

failed to mention seeing a black man in the southeast corner window, i.e., in the sniper's nest

(6:230). But Posner surely should know that Rowland insisted that he had mentioned seeing the

black man in some of his previous interviews, but that the interviewing agents omitted this fact

from the statements (2 H 184-185). Rowland also explained that he didn't think mentioning the

black man was important, that he didn't give him much thought, and that he felt he should focus

on discussing and describing the man he had seen with the rifle. Furthermore, Rowland said that

on one occasion, two days after the assassination, when, as an afterthought, he told two FBI

agents about the black man, they expressed no interest in hearing more about him (2 H 184-185).

According to Posner, Rowland reported seeing fifty policemen converge "instantly on the grassy

knoll after the shots" (6:230). But any fair, reasonable reading of Rowland's testimony makes it

clear that he merely described the same rush to the knoll that so many other witnesses saw and

reported (e.g. 2 H 181). And at no point did Rowland say policemen ran toward the knoll

"instantly" after the shots were fired. Films and photos show that dozens of bystanders and police

officers rushed toward the knoll within one minute of the shooting, and this was undoubtedly

what Rowland was describing.

Interestingly, Rowland didn't look back at the TSBD when the shots were fired because he was

positive they came from in front of the limousine, from the direction of the railroad yard behind

the grassy knoll (2 H 180, 181).

Rowland's testimony is important because it undermines the Warren Commission's version of the

shooting. This is why Posner and other Warren Commission supporters strenuously try to

discredit him. There are, to be sure, some problems with Rowland's story, but all of them are

relatively minor and explainable. On balance, Rowland's story is credible. On point after point

his account checks out. I would invite the reader to compare Posner's treatment of Rowland with

Harold Weisberg's (76:122-142; see also 14:77-78; 4:94-98). Henry Hurt, a former Rockefeller

Foundation fellow, said the following about Rowland:

24

In the end, Rowland's testimony was not only disregarded by the commission, but a

remarkable effort was made to discredit him as a witness. What happened provides an

excellent example of the Warren Commission's manipulation of the credibility of a

witness. While the commission struggled to accept--and finally embraced--Howard

Brennan's self-contradictory testimony (without ever questioning his credibility), it

applied diligence in seeking to discredit Rowland. The commission even asked the FBI to

investigate Rowland's credibility, while, judging from the commission's own records, no

such investigation was made of Brennan. . . .

The commission discovered, in its investigation of Rowland, that he occasionally

exaggerated such matters as his academic grades. His wife acknowledged that she had

known her husband to make such exaggerations. With this, the commission tossed aside

Rowland's testimony.

On the other hand, Howard Brennan's contradictions were overlooked and parts of his

testimony accepted as prime evidence. The point is not whether Rowland could be

considered a simon-pure witness; the point is that at the very least, he was as good a

witness as Brennan--yet the commission ignored his evidence, while Brennan was

elevated to the status of a star witness to assert that Oswald was shooting from the

sniper's perch (71:92).

Harold Weisberg:

Any impartial examination of Rowland's testimony shows he was precise, consistent and,

insofar as his testimony about the events in Dallas that tragic day are concerned, both

truthful and credible--much more so, certainly, than the Commission's pen of star

performers. (76:126)

25

Chapter 5

The Famous Backyard Rifle Photos

Posner insists that the famous backyard photographs, which appear to show Oswald holding the

alleged murder weapon and some radical newspapers, and wearing a pistol, have been positively

authenticated (6:107-109). However, there are indications of fakery in these pictures, and more

doubt was cast upon them in 1992 when two manipulated backyard prints were released from

Dallas police files (4:xxii-xxiii). The prints show the white silhouette of a human figure where

Oswald is supposed to be, although it is not clear yet when these prints were made.

Two of the Backyard Rifle Photos

The discovery of the doctored print lends credence to the account of Robert Hester, a Dallas

photographer who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on

November 22, 1963. Hester said he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard

pictures on November 22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos.

Moreover, one of the backyard photos Hester processed showed no figure in the picture, just like

the doctored print released by Dallas authorities last year (5:452).

The Dallas police said they found two backyard photographs. These are labeled CE 133-A and

133-B. Each shows the Oswald figure in a different pose. Although the Dallas police said they

found two negatives, one for A and one for B, only the B negative is known to exist. A new, and

different, backyard photo of Oswald turned up in the possession of the widow of a former Dallas

policeman in 1976. This is 133-C. Then, in 1977, a much clearer version of 133-A was found

among the possessions of George DeMohrenschildt, a wealthy member of the Dallas Russian

26

community who had intelligence connections and who was a friend of Oswald's. The

DeMohrenschildt family has stated they believe the photo was planted in their father's

belongings to further incriminate Oswald in the public mind.

According to the Warren Commission and the HSCA, all of the backyard snapshots were taken

with a cheap, hand-held camera, known as the Imperial Reflex camera.

When the backyard photos were examined by Major John Pickard, a former commander of the

photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, he declared them to be fakes.

Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of

Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures and came to the same conclusion.

When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic,

Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures.

However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is

different from his chin in other pictures.

There are indications of fraud in the backyard photos that are obvious even to the layman. For

example, the shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction while the shadow of his body falls in

another direction. And, the shadow under Oswald's nose remains the same in all three photos

even when his head is tilted. The HSCA's photographic panel could offer only an unrealistic

reenactment based on highly improbable assumptions to explain the problematic nose shadow. In

the end, the panel ended up appealing to a vanishing point analysis to explain all of the variant

shadows in the backyard photos. I discussed this matter with a number of professional

photographers, and none of them took the position that a vanishing point analysis would explain

the kinds of conflicting shadows seen in the backyard pictures.

Another indication of fakery in the photos is the fact that the HSCA's photographic panel could

find only minute ("very small") differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds.

This virtual sameness of backgrounds is a virtual impossibility given the manner in which the

pictures were supposedly taken. In order to achieve this effect, Marina would have had to hold

the camera in almost the exact same position, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, for

each of the three photos, an extremely unlikely scenario, particularly in light of the fact that

Oswald allegedly took the camera from her in between pictures to advance the film. One would

have a difficult time achieving such nearly perfect correspondence of backgrounds using an

automatic camera.

Graphics expert Jack White seems to make a good case that the backgrounds in the photos are

actually identical, and that the small differences in distance were artificially produced by a

technique known as keystoning. I would encourage those interested in more information on this

subject to obtain Mr. White's video Fake: The Forged Photo That Framed Oswald. (I realize

White's research on the backyard photos has come under heavy attack by lone-gunman theorists.

I would note that two photographic experts who have studied White's research have concluded

that the majority of his arguments are valid.)

Another oddity in the backyard photos is that in 133-B the Oswald figure is wearing a ring on a

finger of his left hand, but in 133-A the ring is not visible. This is "a curious difference," says

Anthony Summers, "if, as Marina testified, she took one picture after another in the space of a

few moments" (14:552 n 65).

27

The shirt and watch worn by the Oswald figure in the photos were not found among Oswald's

possessions. And the shirt, a pullover shirt, was not the style that Oswald usually wore.

The 133-A-DEM photo is much clearer than the snapshots that were allegedly removed from the

Paine's garage. It is so clear and of such high quality that the newsprint is readable on the paper

that the figure is holding. Researchers question whether the cheap, plastic, mass-produced

Imperial Reflex camera could have captured such fine detail from the distance shown in the

photographs. And, again, 133-A-DEM is much clearer and contains more detail than 133-A and

133-B.

Jack White believes he has found a telling indication of fraud in the backyard pictures. White

maintains that the printed edge markings of roll film do not appear on the DeMohrenschildt

photo, which was printed full negative, nor on the 133-B negative. This would indicate that they

were made from sheet film, but the Imperial Reflex camera did not use sheet film; it used only

roll film.

Oswald's wife, Marina Oswald, is the one who supposedly took the backyard pictures. However,

in a recently recorded interview, she said of the backyard photos, "these aren't the pictures I

took" (10:454, emphasis added).

An important development in this matter occurred in 1992 when Dallas authorities released

previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were several photos of

Lee Harvey Oswald, two of which are backyard pictures that show clear signs of tampering. On

February 9, 1992, the Houston Post reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff

section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (4:xxii). The Post further

stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the

background" of the picture (4:xxii). The Post provided a description of the print:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white

silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette

appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an

intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (4:xxii)

The silhouettes in the pictures appear to be right around Oswald's height, and they are in poses

into which it appears the Oswald figure would fit.

The big question is, When were the manipulated prints made? If they were made after the

assassination, then they might represent attempts by the Dallas police to see if the backyard

photos could have been faked. But, if they were made prior to the shooting, they would

constitute undeniable evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

The Houston Post article went on to report that Hershel Womack, a photographic expert at Texas

Tech University, has noted "a variety of alleged inconsistencies with the backyard pictures." I

contacted Professor Womack and asked him to comment on some of these technical

inconsistencies. He replied as follows:

April 26, 2001

Mike,

28

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated,

then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left,

photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the

building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach

the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even

the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back

to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of

the camera.

With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe

the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the

same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of

proportion to that of the post or vice-versa.

Hershel Womack

April 27, 2001

Mike,

I very much enjoyed reading your material and agree with the things you have written

[i.e., my article "A Brief Analysis of the Backyard Rifle Photos"]. I have tried in my

research to concentrate on items that a person with even a very limited knowledge of

photography could understand.

Get 8x10s of the two Warren Report photos and the Roscoe White photo if possible. If

not get the largest and best photo from a publication or book and enlarge them so they are

identical in size using a couple of reference points. This is because some of the photos

have been enlarged and cropped differently.

Then measure from his nose to a common point on each side, do the same to other areas

such as the same point on the pistol etc. Measure from identical points at his feet to

different points at his heads. Measure the stairpost.

Hershel Womack

Those who accept the backyard photos as genuine argue that the HSCA's vanishing point

analysis proves the pictures are authentic. I asked Mr. Brian Mee, an experienced professional

photographer and photo lab technician, about this argument. He reviewed the comments about

the vanishing point analysis and said he did not consider the analysis to be conclusive evidence

of the photos' authenticity. Researcher David Wimp likewise takes issue with the evidentiary

value of the HSCA's vanishing point analysis:

[Quoting from the HSCA photographic evidence panel's report:] "The consistency of the

shadows was also evaluated by application of the vanishing point principle. The concept

of "vanishing point" perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to

photography as well."

29

This is one of my principal complaints about the conclusion [that the HSCA's vanishing

point analysis proves the backyard photos are authentic]. The concept [of vanishing

point] is widely known and would have been known to a competent forger. Passing the

vanishing point test only means that the test fails to reveal forgery. It really offers no

reason for believing the photos are genuine. Another major complaint is that the

vanishing point test only tests the validity of the shadows in one dimension when the

image is two dimensional. Simply put, the test only says a shadow should fall on a line. It

does not say where on the line the shadow should fall. There are then an infinite number

of shadow configurations that would pass the test when, for a given scene, only one is

correct. The test performed by the panel is quite simple and quite well known. Testing the

shadows in two dimensions is a lot harder but that is the type of thing I would expect to

distinguish the work of a highly competent panel. (Newsgroup message, 2 June,

alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup)

In addition to the technical discrepancies in the photos, there were suspicious "irregularities"

concerning the "finding" of the pictures. For starters, although the Dallas police said two

negatives were found, only one negative is (or ever has been) in evidence. Also, the photos were

supposedly found at the home of Michael and Ruth Paine, where Marina Oswald had been

staying. But the snapshots weren't "found" until the day after the assassination, even though the

Paine's home was searched "by various waves" of policemen and FBI agents on the afternoon

and evening of the shooting. There are also puzzling irregularities about the "finding" of the

Imperial Reflex camera (see, for example, 17:202-205).

One also has to wonder why on earth, if the photos are authentic, Oswald didn't destroy them

prior to November 22. Indeed, not only this, but it was Oswald who volunteered to the police that

some of his belongings were in the Paines' garage, where the police allegedly found the backyard

photos soon thereafter! And he told them this after the house had already been thoroughly

searched by "various waves of succeeding policemen, Dallas and Irving and FBI."

Also, what happened to the other backyard negative that the police supposedly found in the

garage? How did all the previous "waves" of law officers overlook or miss the backyard photos

in their numerous searches of the Oswalds' belongings? Not only did all the policemen who

searched the Paines' residence "miss" the backyard photos, but so did the FBI agents who

searched the premises. Perhaps all those law enforcement agents "missed" the photos because

they hadn't been planted in the Paines' garage yet.

A quick, easy step that would go far toward satisfying the doubters would be to simply point to a

reenactment photo that duplicates the variant shadows, or to do a reenactment in that backyard

and duplicate the divergent shadows.

Norman Mailer claims in his book Oswald's Tale that a photo from a 1967 reenactment (i.e.,

Lawrence Schiller's reenactment) contains variant shadows identical to those in the backyard

pictures. I contacted Mailer, and he referred me to Schiller. We exchanged a couple letters, and I

finally got Schiller to send me his photo. When I received it, I was struck by the fact that the

picture quite obviously does not duplicate the variant shadows, especially the neck shadows. I

wrote back to Schiller and pointed out some of the obvious differences between his photo and the

backyard pictures. He never responded. I wrote to Mailer and informed him of the obvious

discrepancies between Schiller's photo and the backyard pictures. He didn't respond either.

30

In point of fact the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos have never been duplicated.

The FBI halfheartedly tried to duplicate them in 1964, but blocked out the head and neck of the

stand-in in the resulting photo. The HSCA failed to duplicate the variant shadows, and they only

tried to replicate the facial shadows--yet they still failed.

As mentioned, Lawrence Schiller claims his 1967 reenactment photo duplicated the shadows, but

even a casual glance at Schiller's photo shows this is not the case. For example, the shadow on

the neck of the backyard figure in Schiller's photo comes straight down in a straight V-like

shape. This is much different from the neck shadow of the figure in the backyard rifle photos.

In 1966 The London Times conducted its own backyard rifle photo simulation in an attempt to

duplicate the variant shadows. Its photographers failed to do so. As Stewart Galanor notes in

Cover-Up,

The London Times's test shows that when the shadow of the nose falls straight down, the

shadow of the body is behind. When the shadow of the nose veers off to the right, so does

the shadow of the body. (81:81)

Anyone can see this for themselves in The London Times reenactment photos, which are shown

in document 35 of Galanor's Cover-Up (81:document 35).

Whatever one wants to say about the backyard rifle photos, it needs to be kept in mind that the

variant shadows in the pictures have never been duplicated. Never.

Before moving on to another subject, I'd like to present what British photographic expert

Malcolm Thompson said about the backyard rifle photos in a 1978 interview. As mentioned,

Thompson deferred to the HSCA's photographic evidence panel on most issues--most, but not

all. Thompson remained especially troubled by the discrepancy between Oswald's chin and the

backyard figure's chin. With these things in mind, I thought some readers would be interested in

reading the interview that Thompson gave on the backyard photos.

First, a little background. Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the Police Forensic

Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence

Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers,

the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here is the

interview he gave on the backyard rifle photos:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence

in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without

doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic

photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.

INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this

were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel

without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them

then they would not be included in the evidence.

31

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a

British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

INTERROGATOR. What leads you to feel that?

Mr. THOMPSON. Well primarily the retouching is very, very obvious in certain parts of

the picture but more in particular in a perpendicular pillar here which should be a straight

line. When one comes to a point, the subjects chin, one finds that there is a bulge in a

line. Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the retoucher has just not

been careful enough to maintain the retouching he should which is within the pillar in

what should be a shadow area. Now that is photograph B. In photograph A we do bit see

as a straight pillar, it is not as if the wood has a flaw at that point there. The flaw is

created in photograph B due to the fact that the retouching has extended over onto the

pillar.

INTERROGATOR. I wonder if you could go through the two photographs and list for

me what you regard as the discrepancies in those photographs.

Mr. THOMPSON. The backgrounds are very, very similar to the point that either the

camera was on a tripod when the pictures were taken or we are speaking about a common

negative having been used to produce the two backgrounds. They look dissimilar, there is

a horizontal shift and a vertical shift in the two pictures but that purely and simply, think,

is meant to mislead the viewer.

When one measures the pictures, photograph A is enlarged slightly greater than

photograph B but even allowing for that, the shadow detail in the static areas of the

picture, that is in particular on the staircase here, the shadows are so exact that there is no

doubt in my mind, it is either a common negative used to produce the two prints or two

successive negatives with the camera on a tripod and neither camera or tripod moved in

any way between the two exposures.

There is a discrepancy up in this area here. At this point I can only assume that someone

has cut out this area and changed its position slightly, it is fractional but in this picture

here we see the horizontal part of neighboring house with a highlight in this area, whereas

in this picture here the horizontal part can be seen far below the section the angle caused

by the upright pillar and the step. You can see a fractional difference there whereas in this

picture the fractional difference does not exist.

Again with that if we take a dark triangle here between the roof of the house next door

and the skyline then that angle finishes up level with the shadow of the staircase there and

in the other picture the diactoral angle is below the shadow of the staircase. Similarly, the

vine passing up through here is in a lower position at that point in that picture than it is in

that picture.

I then come to the conclusion that part has been raised in photograph B and retouching

done down here to fill up the small gap created. That is again borne out by the fact that

here in photograph A the picture finishes up dark and in photograph B at that point the

picture finishes up gray.

32

So much for the background. If we take the body. The body shadows don't relate to the

other shadows in the picture and one can only come, to the conclusion that this body has

been placed in the background and photographed but all the shadows here are swinging to

the left whereas this shadow is slightly to the left but also behind the body is common to

both pictures but when one examines the shadow content., one sees the gun at an angle to

the body which does not relate to the angle in the shadow. The gun is reaching far more

out to the right, more in a horizontal position here in relation to the body shadow than the

gun is actually being held by the person.

INTERROGATOR. So you think that those shadows have actually been touched in.

Mr. THOMPSON. They have been touched in.

Again, there is something peculiar about this hand. The entire hand and arm is very, very

unnatural. It possibly could have been stuck in afterward; but I can't relate

physiologically the position of that arm to the body.

The butt of the rifle I think is the telltale in this picture here where we see very, very little

of the butt actually protruding beyond the trouser line and yet down here having been

painted in is a very, very large butt I say very large in relation to the length of the shadow

and we can measure the length of that shadow in relation to the height of the person and

measure off the butt of the gun as against, the shadow of the butt and that is to me

unnatural.

The head itself, I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square. He has a

rounded chin. Having said that, the subject in this picture has a square chin but again it

doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to appreciate that from the upper lip to the top

of the head is Oswald and one can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to

a chin, not being Oswald's chin.

Then to cover up the montage, retouching has been done both to the right, that is

Oswald's right and Oswald's left and when we consider this area of retouching here--

compare it with what we see in photograph A we have a shadow cast by this wooden

pillar. I have measured those and even allowing for the difference and degree of

enlargement between photograph A and photograph B the area we see in shadow here is

far in excess of what it should be and of course that is the area to which I referred earlier

on where the pillar coming down does not continue in a straight line but has this bulge in

it.

INTERROGATOR. Are there other things about the face itself which would make you

suspicious?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, again we have a shadow underneath the nose. In photographs A

and B you see Oswald's face in a different posture and yet the shadow under the nose

hasn't moved or if it has moved it is only fractional compared with the actual movement

we see in the face and one comes to the conclusion that, it is the same. picture used for

both faces, possibly in this face here he has got a scowl on his face and there has been

retouching done in the chin area which is what would expect if my conclusion is correct,

that this face has been added on to the chin.

33

He has a very, very thick lower lip here which is not consistent with Oswald's lip and

again the shadow underneath the, lip is a horizontal shadow, that is consistent in both,

even allowing for the fact that we have a slight tilt in the head of photograph B as against

that in photograph A.

INTERROGATOR. Is it easy to make a photo montage like this?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; it is very, very common in the advertising world, professional

photography, advertising photographers do montages all the time because. it is the easiest

way of obtaining the effect they want as against trying to set, up that effect, it might be an

impossible effect to set up, they have got to resort to a photo montage to do it.

INTERROGATOR. What about the arm?

Mr. THOMPSON. The arm in photograph B just doesn't look natural; in fact it looks as if

it has been stuck on the body.

INTERROGATOR. How easy is it to make a photo montage like this, how would people

go about it?

Mr. THOMPSON. It's not difficult. If one has a background scene, the subject

photographed against a white background making it simpler to cut out the subject from

the back.

INTERROGATOR. How do you think this photo montage was achieved?

Mr. THOMPSON. The montage could be achieved by a photograph of the background

and a photograph of a body against a white background and having been cut away from

that white background and then merged as we see, it here and then being in possession of

a photograph of Oswald's head, merely mounting that on to the top of the body, stuck

down and touched in such a way that your lines are not going to be too, cut and dried

between the body and the background and then rephotographed on to a negative and then

from that negative of course producing as many prints as you like and possibly

rephotographing the print from the negative in order to soften down the background and

that would develop each time the photograph was copied.

INTERROGATOR. Is that very easy to do.

Mr. THOMPSON. It is not difficult at all, don't ask me to do it, I am a forensic

photographer. The last. thing I would do is to retouch or indulge in any form of montage.

My duty would be to present to the court what I know about the ease and illustrate what I

know about it in straightforward photography but there are retouchers in many facets of

professional photography, they do resort to photo montages, in particular the advertising

profession.

INTERROGATOR. Would the investigator agencies in America like the FBI and the

CIA have that sort of professional expertise themselves

Mr. THOMPSON. I would hope they don't have it. because it is not part of their duties as

forensic photographers to produce anything in court which has been retouched.

34

INTERROGATOR. Yes; but regardless of your hopes, I am asking whether you believe

that the professional agencies in America have that sort of photographic expertise

Mr. THOMPSON. I wouldn't think they have it but most certainly it wouldn't be difficult

to get access to it. Every moderate studio in America has its retoucher in the same way as

the biggest studios in Britain have their retoucher but in America you do have

photographic artists, profession all to itself, and they are spread all throughout the United

States, access to one of those persons, its mostly ladies who do it and do an extremely

good job in producing from a black and white picture, anything from anything as far as

an oil printing from photographs.

INTERROGATOR. How quickly could you make a photographic montage like that

Mr. THOMPSON. I would guess and say that you need at least 4 hours to produce it and

that is working hard and possibly a team working at it, not just one man but I have no

personal experience of how long it takes.

INTERROGATOR. Would you be prepared to produce yourself those photographs as

evidence in court?

Mr. THOMPSON. After having examined them definitely not. I couldn't resort to

producing anything in court which was other than just the original print from the original

negative, even to the point if there was a flaw in the negative I'd be prepared to leave that

in the final enlargement for the court purposes. If trial or the hearing then I could explain

away quite simply as it being a flaw in the negative and possibly have the negative there

as evidence. There is no need to retouch anything in a forensic photograph and certainly

in Britain forensic photographers would just not retouch anything.

INTERROGATOR. Do you believe, that those photographs are a fake?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think they are a false and possibly the shadow detail and its relation

to the static scene and the body are the giveaway, plus the fact there is retouching in

sufficient salient places to make one appreciate that something peculiar has gone in

relation to the head and the body and the areas surrounding it.

INTERROGATOR. Can you describe what your method was in order to try and

determine that?

Mr. THOMPSON. One measures the pictures first to ascertain the degree of enlargement,

there is no use comparing distances on a picture unless you are certain that the two

pictures you are comparing are of the same degree of enlargement. In this case they

weren't of the same degree of enlargement and that created slight difficulty in relating one

subject to another. After having done that a very close examination of the fine detail

present, in the pictures brought me to my conclusion.

INTERROGATOR. Was your method to look for discrepancies

Mr. THOMPSON. Exactly, that has been my life's work looking for the unusual and

comparing one thing with another to see similarities or dissimilarities and what in general

has been your conclusion in looking at those two photographs.

35

In general I have come to the conclusion that we have a montage of three pictures to

make one end product as we see it here today.

INTERROGATOR. Does it strike you as strange that the police did not find these

photographs until the next day?

Mr. THOMPSON. Well searches of premises are always difficult things, to carry out has

got to be systematic, there is only one way to carry out a proper search of a scene of

crime or any other premises which might be of interest to the police and that is there are

two officers doing it and one officer systematically follows round doubling what the

other officer has done and in that way then two pairs of eyes should be better than one

pair and nothing of importance should be missed.

INTERROGATOR. So does it strike you as strange that in their search, after all

connected with the assassination of a president that they should find such damning

evidence the next day?

Mr. THOMPSON. It does, it does seem unusual. One would think that the officers

involved would be highly experienced officers, would know and have been trained to

carry out the search of premises.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are

genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a

considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

INTERROGATOR. Thank you very much.

36

Chapter 6

A Discredited Witness and a Suspicious Palmprint

Amazingly, Posner wholeheartedly accepts the testimony of Howard Brennan, who said he saw

Oswald firing from the sixth-floor window (6:247-250). However, it has been well known for

years that Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial (4:83-94; 5:25-27;

14:78-79). For starters, Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly

observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two

seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in

the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the

Warren Commission rejected.

In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though

he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's

claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so

because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification

(6:249)! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he

even gave them his name (4:92)--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be

killed if he identified Oswald in a police station. In any case, regardless of why Brennan failed to

positively identify Oswald as the man he had seen in the sixth-floor window, it should be pointed

out that it was only after a month's worth of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan finally

gave the authorities a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA

found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story

entirely.

There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan

said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw

Oswald in the sixth-floor window (6:248). Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window

for at least a few seconds after that (6:248). Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away

from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision" (6:248). "He didn't appear to be

rushed," recalled Brennan.

How could Brennan's account be true when Oswald was seen on the second floor less than ninety

seconds after the shooting? Oswald would have had to wipe off the rifle, squeeze out from the

sniper's nest, run to the other side of the floor, hide the weapon carefully between and under

some boxes, and then run down four flights of stairs, dart across the second-floor landing, and

bolt through the foyer door, all in well under ninety seconds.

When the Warren Commission staged a reenactment of Oswald's alleged dash, the police officer

playing Oswald could only meet the ninety-second time limit by not wiping off the rifle and by

skipping the hiding of the rifle (as well as by skipping the Coke buying). If Oswald stayed at the

window for several seconds, or longer, after the limousine drove away, he could not possibly

have made it to the second floor less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired.

37

Yet another often-overlooked problem with Brennan's testimony is that Brennan said he saw

three-fourths of the rifle in the sixth-floor window and that he saw no scope on it. But if the rifle

had been the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano, the scope would have been visible

to Brennan. Brennan, incidentally, was farsighted and, as Posner acknowledges, had

extraordinary vision for anything at a distance (6:250).

Posner accepts the assertion that Oswald's right palmprint was found on the barrel of the Italian-

made Mannlicher- Carcano rifle, the alleged murder weapon. To put it charitably, there were

many "irregularities" surrounding the palmprint. For example, the print had no chain of evidence,

and, amazingly, the police officer who said he found the print, Lt. J. C. Day, failed to photograph

it (4:153-158). When an FBI fingerprint expert examined the Carcano on November 23, he found

no identifiable prints on it, even though Lt. Day said the print was still "visible" when he gave

the rifle to the FBI.

Moreover, the FBI expert said the rifle's barrel did not even appear to have been processed for

prints. Although Lt. Day said he found the palmprint on Friday, November 22, newsmen who

were in touch with Dallas police detectives reported that evening that Oswald's prints had not

been found on the rifle (18:354 n). In addition, on November 23, the Dallas police department's

chief of homicide, Captain Will Fritz, also said Oswald's prints had not been found on the

alleged murder weapon (18:354 n). In point of fact, nobody seemed to know anything about a

palmprint on the rifle until after Oswald was dead (18:354-356 n; 5:443-445). The "discovery"

of the palmprint was so suspicious that even the Warren Commission privately doubted its

authenticity (5:443-445).

38

Chapter 7

The Alleged Murder Weapon and Oswald's Marksmanship

Posner says the Italian rifle's telescopic sight would have made the President's car seem a mere

twenty-five yards away (6:474). However, as Posner should know, the FBI found that the rifle's

scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be

adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could

even be tested (4:126-127).

Lone-gunman theorists like Posner almost never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman

would have needed to fire several rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to

fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in

marksmanship training, explained this to the Warren Commission:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take

in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had

received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and

trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle

in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308)

And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the commission how difficult it was to sight-in the

Carcano rifle:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots,

virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found

that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point

of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we

changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one

direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other

direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also

affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle

approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the

same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was

apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize

itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired

five or six shots.

Mr. FRAZIER: We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in

the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws.

It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by

39

causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it

would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in

addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the

point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the

elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically

pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the

tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper

portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and

for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90

degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and

elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is

necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to

maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)

So when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon prior to

12:30 on the day of the assassination? Would he have even known how to do this?

The Mannlicer-Carcano Allegedly Found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD

Some lone-gunman theorists now suggest Oswald used the Carcano's iron sights instead of the

four-power scope. Perhaps they do so, at least in part, because the FBI reported the rifle's scope

was defective and because the FBI had to stabilize the scope with metal shims in order to fire the

rifle with any degree of accuracy. However, Master Sergeant Zahm told the commission that

using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a

four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

40

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that

you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and

you have the possibility of an error in alining the sights, and then you also have the

possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture.

Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are

concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close

focus of your eye in alining the sights. (11 H 307)

Just what kind of a rifleman was Oswald? The evidence strongly indicates Oswald was a

mediocre shot at best, if not a rather poor shot. Evidence of Oswald's poor marksmanship ability

can be found in the Warren Commission testimony of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel A. G. Folsom.

Col. Folsom revealed the following:

* On Oswald's best day at the range as a Marine, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the second

of three qualification levels (8 H 306). (The second level was called "Sharpshooter." The levels

were "Marksman," then "Sharpshooter," and then "Expert." Many new recruits with little or no

experience with a rifle qualify at the "Sharpshooter" level on their first record firing at the range.)

* Oswald failed to adequately maintain his marksmanship scorebook, which was supposed to be

used to record the zero of the rifle (i.e., the settings needed to properly sight-in the rifle) (8 H

310-311).

* Even when Oswald barely qualified at the "Sharpshooter" level, he shot poorly during slow fire

at 200 yards (8 H 311). His shots were in the three ring on the target, but he should have been

able to keep them in the four ring. At 200 yards, a good shot should have scored between 48 and

50 when firing at 200 yards, but Oswald never scored higher than 38 at this distance (8 H 311).

* Oswald's scorebook suggested he was fortunate to have barely managed to qualify in the

second qualification rating (8 H 311).

Oswald barely qualified as a "Sharpshooter" with a score of 212:

Colonel FOLSOM. Yes; there are scores and adjective designations as a result of the

scores.

In the case of the "A" course, Oswald obtained a score of 212 which would, under

regulations in effect at that time, have made him a sharpshooter. However, the score of

212 was erroneously designated with the abbreviation "MM" for marksman.

When he fired the "B" course, he is rated "MM" or marksman, and this is a correct

designation in accordance with the score fired.

Mr. ELY. Am I correct in stating that when he fired the "A" course he would have been

still in basic training at San Diego?

Colonel FOLSOM. Yes.

Mr. ELY. This was on the 21st of December 1958. Did you mention what the minimum

score for sharpshooter would have been at that point?

Colonel FOLSOM. It would have been 210.

41

Mr. ELY. In other words, he was two points over the minimum for sharpshooter and the

designation "MM" on his record was an error?

Colonel FOLSOM. That is correct. (8 H 306)

Oswald failed to adequately maintain his marksmanship scorebook:

Colonel FOLSOM. It is a photostatic copy of the U.S. Marine Corps Scorebook for use

with the U.S. Rifle, Caliber 30 M-1.

Now, this scorebook is issued to each individual at each time they are sent on the rifle

range for qualification or requalification.

They are maintained by the individual and are used to provide the individual with a

record of the idiosyncrasies of the weapon, and the weather on the day that the entries are

made. This is referred to in the Marine Corps as the zero of the rifle, because the sight

settings are individual characteristics of the particular rifle used. That is, he may--this

rifle may require a half a point more windage under the same wind velocity than another

rifle, and that the scale by yards may require adjustment depending upon the range that is

being fired.

Mr. ELY. This book, then, is used by the individual Marine prior to his firing for record

in order that he can zero his weapon so that he will do well on his record firing?

Colonel FOLSOM. This is the purpose. And it should be maintained even on the day that

he fires for record. In this particular record, it would appear that the entries were rather

limited. As a matter of fact, it was not adequately maintained for the purpose for which it

was designed. (8 H 310-311)

Oswald shot poorly during slow fire at the 200-yard targets:

Mr. ELY. Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the

moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey

Oswald?

Colonel FOLSOM. Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on

Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. ELY. You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's

scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM. Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which

is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Mr. ELY. And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation

or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?

Colonel FOLSOM. Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of

between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

Mr. ELY. And what was his score?

42

Colonel FOLSOM. Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a

possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got

a score of 38, improved four points. (8 H 311)

Oswald's scorebook suggests he was lucky to barely qualify at the "Sharpshooter" level:

Mr. ELY. I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could

fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly

outstanding shot.

Colonel FOLSOM. No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that

he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum

score for sharpshooter.

Mr. ELY. In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?

Colonel FOLSOM. I would say so. (8 H 311)

Surprisingly, Posner actually cites Oswald's Marine rifle scores as evidence that he could have

done the shooting (6:475). Posner doesn't discuss Col. Folsom's testimony about those scores.

Any analysis of Oswald's Marine marksmanship record should also consider the following facts:

* Even during the so-called "rapid fire" phase at the range Oswald had ample time to aim at the

target. However, in the assassination, for the two shots after Z210, i.e., after the limo cleared the

oak tree, the gunman would have had to score two out of two in 5-6 seconds. Yet, the Master-

rated shooters who participated in the Warren Commission's rifle tests consistently missed their

second shot. Moreover, the Warren Commission shooters missed the target silhouette

completely several times, and only one of their shots struck the head or neck region of the target

silhouette. And these were Master-rated shooters firing at stationary targets from only 30 feet

up.

* At the Marine Corps rifle range Oswald used the M-1 rifle, which of course had no bolt, which

of course meant all he had to do was aim and squeeze the trigger. This is a far, far cry from

firing a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger-pull.

* Oswald had practiced for weeks prior to his first fire for record in the Marines. There is not a

shred of evidence that Oswald had any rifle practice whatsoever in the 40 days prior to the

assassination. Indeed, his landlady said he stayed home at nights after he came home from work,

and by all official accounts the only thing he did on the weekends was visit with Marina. In fact,

in the four years leading up to the assassination, the Warren Commission could only come up

with 12 alleged cases of where Oswald had any rifle practice, and one of those included Marina's

claim that he would practice working the rifle's bolt while relaxing in New Orleans.

* At the range Oswald was not firing at a steep downward angle. Anyone who has been to

Dealey Plaza and has stood on the sixth floor or on the street beneath the window knows the

downward angle would have been very steep. Would Oswald have known he needed to use the

high-low aiming formula when firing from an elevation?

* At the rifle range Oswald was not firing through a window that was only open 15 inches, as he

would have had to do during the assassination. And would Oswald have known that you have to

43

alter your aiming point when firing from an elevation in order to fire accurately? I doubt it.

There is no record that Oswald ever fired from an elevation.

* At the range Oswald was not firing at a moving target, especially at a moving target that had

armed escorts to defend it. Yet, the best he ever did was to barely qualify in the middle

qualification category, and that was after ample practice, using a semi-automatic rifle and firing

from a level position.

Why is it important to know that Oswald was not a very good shot? Because not one of the

expert, experienced riflemen who took part in the Warren Commission's rifle test or in the CBS

rifle test was able to duplicate the shooting performance that the commission attributed to

Oswald (2 hits in 3 shots in less than 6 seconds on the first and only attempt firing at a moving

target from 60 feet up through a partially open window). In fact, no one has ever duplicated this

alleged shooting feat.

Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas

44

Chapter 8

Smoke on the Grassy Knoll

One of Posner's reasons for rejecting the testimony of witnesses who said they saw smoke on the

grassy knoll after the shooting is that "modern ammunition is smokeless" (6:256). However,

Posner says nothing about "smokeless ammunition" in presenting the testimony of James

Worrell, who reported he saw "smoke" come from the rifle that saw firing from the sixth floor of

the TSBD (6:247). Anyhow, the HSCA's firearms experts debunked the myth of "smokeless

ammunition" (25:27; cf. 5:59). Even if "modern ammunition" were truly smokeless, which it

isn't, that would say little about the ammunition used in 1963.

Continuing, Posner says, "It is likely that any smoke seen was in fact steam" from the hot steam

pipe behind the fence on the knoll (6:256). But the steam pipe was too far back from the fence to

have produced the smoke seen on the knoll; nor could the smoke have been motorcycle exhaust,

as other lone-gunman theorists maintain (25:27). Galanor says the following about the steam-

piple explanation:

The steam pipe . . . can be seen in the film Rush to Judgment. It is over 100 feet away

from the point on the knoll where smoke was observed by the six railroad workers. No

one reported smoke or steam at the location of the steam pipe. If a steam pipe had been

the cause of smoke at the site of the steam pipe or on the grassy knoll, one would expect

the steam or smoke to have been seen again. No such sightings occurred. (81:62)

The Grassy Knoll

45

In one frame of the Weigman film, as the presidential limousine enters the triple underpass a puff

of smoke is visible hanging in front of the trees on the knoll, which is exactly where Sam

Holland and other railroad workers placed the smoke (5:58). Not only did some people see what

appeared to be gun smoke on the grassy knoll, but several witnesses said they detected the scent

of gun powder on and near the knoll right after the shots were fired (5:16-17). The grassy knoll,

it should be recalled, was in front and to the right of JFK's limousine when he was shot. Not one

of the police officers who inspected the alleged sniper's nest reported smelling the slightest trace

of gun powder.

46

Chapter 9

The Dallas Doctors and the Medical Evidence

Posner reportedly interviewed seven of the Dallas doctors who saw JFK's body at Parkland

Memorial Hospital, and all of them allegedly agreed with the Warren Commission's claims about

the President's wounds (6:286-316). The seven doctors who reportedly told Posner they accepted

the Commission's medical claims were Pepper Jenkins, Malcolm Perry, Charles Carrico, Adolph

Giesecke, William Midgett, Paul Peters, and Ronald Jones. According to Posner, these doctors

now say the head wound was on the right side of the head and that the throat wound was an exit

wound, which is what the Warren Commission asserted. Posner denies there was a large defect

in the back of Kennedy's skull, for this would indicate a shot from the front.

According to Posner, the fatal head shot came from behind and exploded out of the "right side"

of Kennedy's head (6:307-316). There is massive eyewitness testimony against this view and for

the belief that the fatal head shot came from the front and exited the right rear portion of the

President's skull. Virtually all lone-gunman theorists deny there was a large defect in the rear of

JFK's head, but the wound was closely observed by numerous witnesses, including Parkland and

Bethesda medical personnel and federal agents. Harrison Livingstone has superbly documented

this eyewitness evidence in his books High Treason 2 and Killing the Truth.

Posner discusses two of the Dallas doctors who continue to dispute the later placements of the

large wound, Dr. Robert McClelland and Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who wrote a book rejecting the

autopsy findings.

Posner engages in a scurrilous attack on Dr. Crenshaw, questioning his sanity and veracity. As

part of his attack, Posner quotes some disparaging comments about Crenshaw made by an

anonymous "close Crenshaw friend" (6:313-314). Posner does not inform his readers that Dr.

Crenshaw, a man of impeccable reputation, is Clinical Professor of Surgery at the University of

Texas Southwestern Medical School and is on the staff of John Peter Smith Hospital and St.

Joseph Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. In addition, Dr. Crenshaw has been honored with

inclusion in several medical and professional societies and has published extensively.

Dr. Crenshaw was present during the efforts to save JFK's life. He noted "much of what was

going on, and his recollections are extensive" (10:110). Dr. Crenshaw says the large defect was

in the back of the President's head, and he is certain the wound could only have been caused by a

shot from the front. After the President had been pronounced dead, Dr. Crenshaw stood right

behind Aubrey Rike as Rike helped to put Kennedy's body in the coffin. He remembers Rike

commenting that he could feel the edges of bone around the hole in the back of the President's

head (10:112). Rike has confirmed this in interviews (e.g., 10:118).

Apparently Posner couldn't find an anonymous "close friend" of Dr. McClelland's to assail his

sanity and character, so he questions the doctor's judgment and memory. Three of the other

Dallas doctors, along with Dr. Michael Baden, a long-time defender of the single-assassin

theory, are enlisted to assist in the attack (6:312-313). However, Dr. McClelland, a deeply

47

religious man, has been consistent in his descriptions of JFK's head wound. He told the Warren

Commission that the large defect was in the back of the head, and, unlike some of the other

Dallas doctors, he has never had a convenient change of memory. Moreover, it is strange that

when Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission, not one of the other Parkland

doctors questioned or contradicted his testimony in any way. In fact, all but one of the Dallas

doctors who testified before the Commission on the subject placed the head wound in the right

rear part of the skull, just as Dr. McClelland did (18:308-337); and that one doctor, when

interviewed on camera years later, located the large defect more toward the right rear part of the

head (68:87).

Parkland Hospital After JFK’s Limousine Arrived at the Hospital

Dr. Peters' reported change of memory, if true, would be especially pronounced. According to

Posner, Dr. Peters now accepts the Warren Commission's placement of the head wound.

However, when asked about the wound for the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, he

said,

I could see that he had a large, about seven- centimeter, opening in the right occipital-

parietal area [i.e., the right rear part of the head]. A considerable portion of the brain was

missing there, and the occipital cortex, the back portion of the brain, was lying down near

the opening of the wound, and blood was trickling out.

As Dr. Peters gave this description of the head wound, he repeatedly illustrated his explanation

by placing his right hand on the right rear part of the head, exactly where Crenshaw and

McClelland locate the wound.

Furthermore, in a letter to researcher Brad Parker, dated March 4, 1994, which was after Posner's

book was published, Dr. Peters said, "the wound, I still maintain, was occipito-parietal. . ."

Either Dr. Peters changed his mind and reverted to his original view on the wound after talking

to Posner or Posner misrepresented what he said. The latter possibility is likely, in my opinion,

given the fact that two of the witnesses whom Posner says he interviewed have said they did not

speak with Posner.

48

Just what is the evidence that there was a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head?

The following individuals got a good look at, and in many cases also handled, the President's

head and are on record that the large wound was in the right rear part of the skull:

* Audrey Bell, a nursing supervisor at Parkland Hospital.

* Diana Bowron, Parkland Hospital nurse. Nurse Bowron actually cleaned the large defect and

packed it with gauze squares in preparing the body for the casket. She vividly remembers that the

large head wound was in the right rear part of the skull. When interviewed by a British

newspaper on the day after the assassination, Nurse Bowron recalled the wound in the back of

the head:

"There was blood all over his neck and shoulders,” she said. “There was a gaping wound

in the back of his head." (19 H 170)

* Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital.

* Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland Hospital.

* Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician at Bethesda Hospital who took the President's autopsy x-

rays.

* Dr. Richard Dulaney, Parkland Hospital.

* Dr. John Ebersole, Bethesda Hospital radiologist. In an extensive interview with his hometown

newspaper in 1978, Dr. Ebersole said, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a

very obvious horrible gaping wound in the back of the head" (18:543).

* William Greer, Secret Service agent, who drove the presidential limousine.

* Clint Hill, a Secret Service agent who was taken to the morgue for the express purpose of

viewing the President's wounds and who was also in the Parkland trauma room when the

President was being treated. It was Agent Hill who climbed onto the back of the limousine to get

Jackie Kennedy to return to her seat. Hill testified that as he was lying over the top of the back

seat "I noticed a portion of the president's head on the right rear side was missing and he was

bleeding profusely" (8:285, emphasis added). It should be added that Agent Hill described saw

this same right-rear head defect when he went to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing

the President's wounds.

* Patricia Hutton (now Patricia Gustaffson), a nurse at Parkland Hospital who placed a bandage

against the wound in the back of the head.

* James Curtis Jenkins, a Navy lab technician at Bethesda Hospital who was present at the

autopsy.

* Dr. Robert Karnei, Bethesda Hospital, who was present at the autopsy.

* Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service agent who was present at the autopsy.

* Dr. Robert McClelland, Parkland Hospital.

* Doris Nelson, a chief nurse at Parkland Hospital.

49

* Floyd Riebe, a photographic technician who took pictures of the President's body at Bethesda

Hospital.

* Aubrey Rike, an ambulance driver and funeral home worker in Dallas. Rike was called to

Parkland Hospital soon after the shooting and assisted in placing the President's body in the

casket. Rike could actually feel the edges of the large wound in the back of the head.

* Tom Robinson, the mortician who had the job of putting the President back together after the

autopsy in case the family wanted to take one last look at him. Robinson, of course, had to spend

a good part of his time handling the President's head. He saw and felt the large wound in the

back. The recently released HSCA interview of Robinson reveals that Robinson told the

Committee that the large defect was in the back of the head, and, significantly, that there was an

orange-sized hole in the rear even after the inclusion of late-arriving skull fragments from

Dallas. Robinson said he was quite certain about his recollection regarding the large head

wound, which is not surprising, since he observed it from close range and handled it.

* Jan Gail Rudnicki, a lab assistant at Bethesda Hospital who was present at the autopsy.

* Roy Stamps, a Fort Worth newsman who saw Kennedy lying in the limousine before he was

moved into Parkland Hospital. Said Stamps, "I rushed up and saw Kennedy lying in the car. . . .

The back of his head was gone" (5:362).

* Dr. David Stewart, Parkland Hospital.

Below is a brief look at the initial statements made by several of the Dallas doctors showing that

they located the large head wound in the right rear part of the skull. The remarks are taken from

the doctors' hospital reports and from their subsequent Warren Commission testimony as

presented in volume 6 of the HSCA appendices (pp. 303-304):

* Dr. Kemp Clark:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the

occipital region of the skull, were noted.

There was a large wound in the right occipito- parietal region . . . both cerebral and

cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.

There was a large wound beginning in the right occipital extending into the parietal

region.

* Dr. Charles Carrico:

Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads

instituted.

* Dr. Malcolm Perry:

A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted.

* Dr. Charles Baxter:

The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.

50

A large gaping wound in the back of the skull . . . literally the right side of his head was

blown off.

* Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital )

causing a great defect in the skill plate . . . even to the extent that the cerebellum had

protruded from the wound.

* Dr. Ronald Jones:

What appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of skull.

* Dr. Gene Akins:

Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance

protruding.

* Dr. Paul Peters:

We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound.

Robert Groden said the following regarding the large defect in a report he submitted to the Select

Committee:

The most reliable descriptions [of the large head wound] were those from the Parkland

doctors on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin, McClelland,

and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and several others all describe that same wound in great

detail, and all place it at the same point in the rear of the President's head in the area of

the occipital bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protruded from a large avulsive exit

wound. This too indicates a lower rear head exit wound. . . .

Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Kennedy's head wound at

Parkland are corroborated by those who saw the bullet impact upon the head in Dealey

Plaza. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the president's skull fly from the

President's head and travel toward the rear-left of the car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to

pick up this piece (and indeed from a recently declassified portion of her Warren

Commission testimony we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and

tried to hold it onto the rear of her husband's head.

The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza. Originally, the

"Harper" fragment was identified by a qualified pathologist as a section of occipital bone.

In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from the rear of the

President's head. (6 HSCA 299-300)

In his section on the Dallas doctors, Posner suggests none of the doctors actually examined the

large head wound. The record shows this claim is false. Some of the Dallas doctors made it

clear that they did in fact examine the large head wound. Dr. Kemp Clark, who was a

neurosurgeon at Parkland Hospital, told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter that he

examined the large head wound:

51

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival

there?

Dr. CLARK. The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was

performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was

assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr.

Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a

few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from

the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube. I then examined the

President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes

were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the president's head. This was a large, gaping

wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and

exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the

clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

(6 H 20, emphasis added)

So Dr. Clark, who, as mentioned, was a neurosurgeon, "examined the wound in the back of the

president's head." Let us hear no more of the claim that the Dallas doctors were so rushed they

didn't have time to examine the large head wound. Not only was it examined, but it was

examined by a neurosurgeon. Are we to believe that a neurosurgeon didn't know the difference

between an area next to the external occipital protuberance and an area above and slightly

forward of the right ear? If Posner is correct about the location of the large head wound, then

this means Dr. Clark and numerous other medical authorities mistook a wound that was above

and forward of the right ear for a wound that was well behind the ear and that was in fact near

the external occipital protuberance, a difference of several inches. This seems very unlikely, to

say the least.

Another Dallas doctor who examined the large wound was Dr. McClelland, who was in an

excellent position to observe the wound:

Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the

tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head

wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already

described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very

closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull

had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so

that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured

almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured

in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you

could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at

least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had

been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from

the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. (6 H 33)

52

This is very important. Dr. McClelland had ample time to closely examine the large head wound,

and he testified it was in the "right posterior portion of the skull," which is where the other

doctors likewise said it was.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect did this medical treatment have on President Kennedy?

Dr. McCLELLAND. As near as we could tell, unfortunately, none. We felt that from the

time we saw him, most of us agreed, all of us agreed rather, that this was a moral wound,

but that in spite of this feeling that all attempts possible should be made to revive him, as

far as establishing the airway breathing for him, and replacing blood and what not, but

unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so

great that the efforts were of no avail.

Mr. SPECTER. Was he conscious at that time that you saw him?

Dr. McCLELLAND. No.

Mr. SPECTER. And, at what time did he expire?

Dr. McCLELLAND. He was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. on November 22.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the cause of death in your opinion?

Dr. McCLELLAND. The cause of death, I would say, would be massive head injuries

with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss. (6 H

34)

Posner is confident the alleged JFK autopsy photos and x-rays are authentic. He points out that

they were authenticated by two HSCA panels (6:301-302). However, those panels based their

authentications on a few narrow criteria, and they did not explain all of the indications of fakery

in the autopsy materials (10:313-356).

Posner attempts to explain only one of the several indications of forgery, namely, the seeming

disparity between the pictures of the face and the skull x-rays. In the autopsy pictures Kennedy's

face is intact and undamaged. The emerging consensus is that the x-rays do indeed show missing

frontal bone, but not in the forehead area as was previously thought by some researchers. The

missing frontal bone, say experts, is just beyond the forehead, i.e., just past the hairline. Dr.

Lawrence Angel and Dr. G. M. McDonnel prepared interpretations of the alleged skull x-rays for

the HSCA. These experts put the missing frontal bone beyond the hairline. So does Dr. David

Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist who was permitted to examine the original x-rays at

the National Archives. Dr. Phillip Williams, a neurosurgeon who saw JFK's body at Parkland

Hospital, likewise noted, at a filmed 1991 conference which included several medical witnesses,

that the x-rays depict missing frontal bone (10:301-302).

If nothing else, the x-rays show considerable damage to the frontal bone. Where is this damage

even suggested in the autopsy photos that show the face? The amount of missing bone and

damage in the right frontal area seen on the x-rays do not seem to be reflected in the autopsy

photos. In fact, in the autopsy photographs, there is virtually no damage to the frontal area.

Some of the other indications of fraud in the autopsy x-rays and photographs are as follows:

53

* The x-rays were authenticated partly on the basis of a right frontal sinus, but if the x-rays are

composites, or are the originals but have been altered, an authentication based on sinuses does

not automatically prove authenticity.

* In the color versions of the right-profile and top-of-the-head pictures, there are three large

bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe

wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos the stripes

are white or light gray. However, red turns to black, not to white or light gray.

* In the stare-of-death picture labeled F1 from the James K. Fox set, the President's head casts a

shadow on the towel beneath the right ear, but according to professional photographer Steve

Mills the shadow should not be there because the light from the camera's flash would have

eliminated it.

* The autopsy photos were supposedly taken at the morgue of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, but

some of the medical technicians who worked there--and who also assisted with the autopsy--

have stated that the background in those pictures does not appear to be that of the Bethesda

morgue. Among other things, these technicians note that the instrument tray shown in the F7 top-

of-the-head photo is not the kind of tray they recall being used at the Bethesda morgue.

Additionally, the left-profile picture shows a black phone on the wall beside the table, but these

autopsy technicians question whether there was a phone at that position at the morgue.

* In the skull x-rays, according to the conclusions of both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical

panel, there does not appear to be a large defect in the right rear part of the head. The alleged

autopsy photos of the back and the back of the head don't show a large defect in that area either.

However, as mentioned, numerous medical professionals and federal agents who saw Kennedy's

body have stated that there was a large hole in that area of the skull. Moreover, private experts

who have examined the x-rays report that the anterior-posterior radiograph does indicate missing

bone in the back of the skull.

* The skull x-rays show a large 6.5 mm fragment in the outer table of the skull below what

appears to be an entrance hole in the back of the head. However, no such fragment was observed

in the skull x-rays that were taken and examined on the night of the autopsy. Moreover, the

apparent entrance hole in the x-rays is four inches higher than the entry point described in the

autopsy report. Additionally, ballistics expert Howard Donahue pointed out it was highly

unlikely that this fragment could have come from a bullet fired from the alleged sniper's nest.

Defenders of the x-rays speculate that the fragment "sheared off" from the bullet as the missile

entered the skull.

But Donahue observed that a bullet fired from the TSBD, and thus entering the skull at a

downward angle, should have deposited a sheared-off fragment above the entrance point, not

below it. He further noted he had never heard off a fully metal-jacketed bullet shearing on impact

(8:68, 160). Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists about this subject, and all of them

said they had never heard of a fragment shearing off a fully jacketed missile and depositing itself

on the outer table of the skull, and that they considered this highly unlikely (8:68). Australian

forensic expert Detective Shaun Roach and forensic pathologist Dr. Halpert Fillinger have

likewise stated that they have never heard of a fully jacketed missile behaving in this manner,

and that they consider such a scenario extremely improbable.

54

Dr. Mantik, after studying the original x-rays at the National Archives with an optical

densitometer, has determined that the 6.5 mm object on the anterior-posterior x-ray is not

metallic. This means it must have been added to the x-ray after the autopsy. Dr. Mantik discusses

this important finding in his chapter on the medical evidence in the new book Assassination

Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998).

Some experts assert that the x-rays are authentic but that they have been misinterpreted by the

government-hired consultants who have examined them. For instance, Dr. Randy Robertson, a

radiologist who has examined the x-rays at the National Archives, says they show that two

bullets struck President Kennedy in the head, and that one of them entered from the front. Dr.

Joseph Riley has likewise concluded that the skull x-rays show that two bullets struck Kennedy's

head. Additionally, Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. David Mantik maintain that one of the skull x-rays

at the National Archives suggests a defect in the right rear part of the head.

From recently released files, important information has come to light that casts further doubt on

the authenticity of the autopsy x-rays and photos. What follows is a summary of only a small

portion of this information:

* John Stringer reported that the throat wound was probed. This is key because it proves the

autopsy doctors were lying when they testified that they were not aware of the throat wound until

after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.

* White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went downward

from the throat wound, that is, the back wound was lower than the throat wound. Knudsen

assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The

fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.

* Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the Assassination

Records Review Board (ARRB) that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the

external occipital protuberance (EOP) upward to the area of the right orbit. This is further

evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower,

very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important?

Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless

Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the

Muchmore film clearly show it was not.

* Saundra Kay Spencer, according to chain of evidence documentation, processed the autopsy

photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not

process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, as I've noted in a

previous message, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos.

She said the autopsy photos in evidence were not the ones she processed. This suggests the black

and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were two sets of autopsy

photos.

* Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the

ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back

of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.

55

* O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed

what appeared to be an entry wound in the right temple. This is key because there were several

reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends

to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right

temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of

whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist).

* Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he told the HSCA on this point, namely, that he

saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although

Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence

of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and

in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House

press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley

told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to

illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that

press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple").

* O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the

head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos,

one genuine and the other altered.

* Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four

autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely

altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was

shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy.

* Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was

shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos

in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval

Hospital.

* Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into three wounds.

The Warren Commission said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the

other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than

one gunman.

* Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled at least two probes inserted into

wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which three probes were inserted into

wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period.

* Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third

piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his

comment.

* Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the

naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere.

* The Secret Service (SS) agent in charge of the Miami SS office told the HSCA he believed

some elements of the SS might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination.

56

* SS Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the

throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that

Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound

was an entrance wound.

* Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly

remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to

be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.

* Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a

mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an

"orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he

very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the

wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged

period of time, but he also handled it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson

"confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-

gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.

* Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda

Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at

Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the

autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e.,

that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda.

* X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-

rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck

and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason

those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. The Clark

Panel concluded the x-rays show bullet fragments in the neck region.

* Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body

was lifted for the taking of x-rays.

* Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during

the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because

a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.

* Doug Horne, an analyst for the ARRB, wrote a 32-page report to the board in which he

concluded the available evidence indicated that the autopsy doctors examined two different

brains and that the brain seen in the autopsy photos is not Kennedy's brain. I quote from George

Lardner's November 10, 1998, article in The Washington Post on Horne's report:

The central contention of the report 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 Nov. 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.

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President

Kennedy's brain," Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview. "If they aren't, that

57

can mean only one thing -- that there has been a coverup of the medical evidence." Horne

contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the

first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front.

The report points to, for instance, the testimonies of former FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill

Jr., who was present at the Nov. 22, 1963, autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and of

former Navy photographer John T. Stringer, who said he took photos at a supplementary

brain examination two or three days later, probably on the morning of Nov. 25.

O'Neill told the board in a 1997 deposition that at the Nov. 22 autopsy "there was not too

much of the brain left" when it was taken out of Kennedy's skull and "put in a white jar."

He said "more than half of the brain was missing."

Shown the brain photographs deeded to the Archives by the Kennedy family, which were

taken sometime after the autopsy, O'Neill said they did not square with what he saw. The

"only section of the brain which is missing is this small section over here," O'Neill said of

one photograph. "This looks almost like a complete brain."

Stringer said the photos he took at the "supplementary examination" conducted by J.

Thornton Boswell and James Humes did not resemble those at the Archives. He said they

seemed to be on "a different type of film" from the one he used. He said he also took

photographs of "cross sections of the brain" that had been cut out to show the damage.

No such photos are in the Archives collection. (82)

58

Chapter 10

The First Shot

Posner asserts that the first shot came at around frame 160 of the Zapruder film, and that it

missed both Kennedy and the limousine (6:320-326). In other words, the sixth-floor shooter

supposedly fired his first shot just a fraction of a second before the President's limousine

disappeared beneath the intervening oak tree in front of the Depository. This suggestion is

doubtful. In order to fire at frame 160, the gunman would have had to fire at a sharply downward

angle, and it seems to me that he would have also had to shift his body to the right and rise out of

his kneeling position a little bit. In any case, he would have been firing at a substantial

downward angle. I believe that the first shot did occur at around frame 160, but I doubt that it

was fired from the sixth-floor window.

It is hard to conceive how a gunman firing from the sixth-floor window could have completely

missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine. He would have been firing from 60 feet up

and from less than 140 feet away for a shot at around frame 160. How could he have missed the

entire limousine? This would have been a staggering miss from the sixth-floor window. Even the

Warren Commission, as desperate as it was to expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time,

could not swallow the idea that his first shot came before frame 207, which is when the

limousine would have reemerged into the sixth-floor shooter's view after passing beneath the oak

tree (Kennedy would have come back into view at Z210).

The Commission rightly noted that in order to believe the gunman missed on his first shot, we

would have to believe that he managed to completely miss, not only the President, but the entire

limousine, "one of the . . . closest of his shots"--and the Commission, it should be noted, was

talking about a first shot that would have been farther away than a shot at around frame 160.

The Commission, by all accounts, leaned strongly toward the view that the first shot was a hit,

and this position is evident in the Commission's report. With this in mind, it is important to note

that the Commission believed that Kennedy was not hit before frame 210. The Commission

explained:

It is probable that the President was not shot before frame 210, since it is unlikely that the

assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a view obstructed by the oak tree when

he was about to have a clear opportunity. It is also doubtful that even the most proficient

marksman would have hit him through the oak tree. (32:98, 105)

The Commission said a shot prior to frame 166, i.e., the relatively brief span of time when the

limousine traveled on Elm Street before disappearing beneath the tree, would have been

"hurried." I suspect the Commission did not feel the need to elaborate because it knew that it was

extremely unlikely that the gunman would have missed both Kennedy and the huge limousine

from such a relatively short distance and high elevation, even though the shot would have

required a steep downward angle.

59

One indication of the awkwardness of a shot from the sixth floor before frame 166 is CE 887,

which shows a technician taking reenactment footage from the sniper's nest for the Warren

Commission. The technician is filming through a camera attached to the Carcano. The rifle is

mounted on a tripod stand and is several inches higher than Oswald would have been able to

feasibly hold the rifle while still kneeling and keeping an elbow on the boxes that he allegedly

positioned by the window for support (compare CE 887 with CE 2707 in 32:99, 142). Even with

the rifle thusly stationed on the technician's tripod, the barrel is pointing downward at a rather

sharp angle and the scope is nearly touching the lower edge of the window shutter. It is also

interesting to note that the technician seems to be somewhat cramped as he is filming from the

corner, even though he is using a box to sit on, and even though the surrounding boxes have been

removed to allow him more freedom of movement. A sixth-floor assassin would have been even

more cramped, and he would not have had the comfort of sitting on a box while firing.

Yet, even with the sharp downward angle, it's hard to imagine how any gunman firing from the

sixth-floor window could have missed the entire limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long and

6.5 feet wide. How on earth could even a novice have missed such a huge target while using

either the iron sights or the four-power scope?

The bottom line is that it's highly unlikely the gunman in the sixth-floor window fired before

frame 166, since this would require us to believe he missed the entire limousine. Thus, the

Commission's alleged lone assassin would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire three shots

with world-class accuracy using a clumsy bolt-action rifle. Not one of the expert marksmen hired

by the Warren Commission could duplicate the shooting feat attributed to Oswald.

Posner gets himself into more trouble with his claim that the first shot missed, which, as

discussed above, is a highly doubtful scenario (6:319-326). Aside from the improbability that the

gunman would have missed the entire limousine, another problem with this assertion is that if the

first shot was fired at Z-frame 160, as Posner claims, it could not possibly have caused James

Tague's facial injury, which resulted from one of two things: (1) flying concrete that came from a

nearby curb when the curb was struck by a bullet that missed, or (2) a bullet fragment that struck

the face directly. Tague was standing under the triple underpass, about 450 feet from where

Posner's stray shot would have landed. In addition, he was standing over twenty feet from the

point on the curb where the bullet struck. And Tague's facial injury was no little scratch: It was a

bleeding cut (68:41).

To account for the wounding of Tague, Posner offers some downright fanciful speculation.

According to Posner, the first bullet struck a limb of the oak tree, after which its lead core

instantly separated from the metal jacketing and traveled in a straight line from the TSBD to the

curb over 400 feet away, somehow landing with enough force to send concrete fragments

streaking toward Tague! This is surely far-fetched. Even if we assume the lead core instantly

shed its copper jacketing after the supposed tree-branch collision, would the core have had

sufficient force over 400 feet later to send concrete flying fast enough to cut Tague's face? And

how could Oswald, the alleged world-class marksman, have missed his target so badly that he hit

a branch of the oak tree? How could he have aimed so poorly on his first shot when the first shot

is usually the most accurate?

For Posner's theory even to be possible, we would have to believe that the bullet struck the limb

at a point where the limb was strong enough not to snap or bend from the force of the missile's

60

impact. This means the bullet would have had to strike the limb at least a foot or two from its tip,

which would have been a mind-boggling miss from the sniper's nest.

It is worth pausing to note a glaring contradiction in Posner's scenario. According to Posner,

when the first fully metal-jacketed Carcano missile struck a tree limb, this caused the lead core to

separate from the copper jacketing. But, the next Carcano bullet supposedly transited Kennedy's

neck, plowed through Connally's back, broke a rib bone and a hard wrist bone, and then

penetrated the Governor's thigh, yet emerged in nearly perfect condition, with its lands and

grooves intact, with no damage to its nose, and with no more than 4 grains lost from its

substance.

One might wonder why Posner posits such an early first shot instead of following Jim Moore and

placing the initial bullet at the break in the foliage. Posner goes with an early first shot because,

unlike other lone-gunman theorists, he acknowledges there is persuasive eyewitness testimony

that a shot was fired between Zapruder frames 145 and 166. (There is also good evidence that

another shot was fired at right around frames 186-188.) Posner's problem is that he can't allow

for the possibility that a gunman was firing from a building adjacent to the TSBD. An assassin

firing from one of the buildings that were on the other side of Houston Street and closer to Main

Street would have had a good view of the limousine prior to frame 207 (and afterward).

Based on an analysis of the Zapruder film, the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that

"President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame

207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view" (6 HSCA 16). The

panel concluded that this shot was fired just before frame 190, probably at around frames 186-

188. But the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limousine would have been obscured by the oak

tree at this time. The Select Committee's chief counsel suggested that the sixth-floor gunman

fired this shot at frame 186, during the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage. However, the

gunman would have had only 1/18th of a second to aim and fire this shot, yet the human eye

requires 1/6th of a second to register and react to data. Also, even the Warren Commission

admitted it was unlikely that the alleged single assassin would have fired during the break in the

foliage (32:98-105).

61

Chapter 11

The "Second" Shot

As for the second shot, Posner says it was the first hit, and that it passed through Kennedy and

Connally nearly simultaneously at Z-frame 224 (6:329-332). Posner bases this idea on the claim

that the right front of the Governor's suit lapel flips up at this frame. According to Posner, this

establishes the moment of the second shot because the movement of the jacket occurs "at the

exact area" where Connally's suit and shirt have a bullet hole (6:330). But how did this bullet,

which, according to the chief autopsist, hit Kennedy's back at a downward angle of 45 to 60

degrees, or 21 degrees according to the HSCA's trajectory analysis, manage to go up to JFK's

throat and yet strike Connally at a downward angle of 27 degrees? We will return in a moment to

the impossible trajectories of the bullet that supposedly passed through both Kennedy and

Connally.

But what of the lapel flip? Some suggest it was caused by the rather stiff breeze that was

intermittently blowing in Dealey Plaza that day (13:18). If a bullet caused the lapel flip, what do

we do with the evidence that indicates Connally wasn't sruck until right around Z234-237?

Governor Connally himself chose frame 234 as the actual moment of impact.

It should be noted that the missile did not exit through the lapel. Posner says the lapel is the

"exact area" where the Governor's suit and shirt have a hole. But the bullet hole is not in the coat

lapel--it is lateral to it. In fact, in a diagram of the exit wound drawn by the surgeon who worked

on the injury, the hole is almost directly under and well beneath the right nipple (68:126). It is

possible, though, assuming a bullet exited Connally's chest at Z224, that the force of bullet's

departure pushed the jacket and made the lapel flip up and down. Can a lapel even flip up and

down as quickly as Connally's appears to do in the Zapruder film, in the space of one or two

frames (1/18th to 1/9th of a second)? Some researchers dispute that the lapel really flips up,

while others say Nellie Connally's pulling on her husband caused the lapel flip.

A key indicator is Zapruder frame 238, in which the Governor's right shoulder drops sharply, in

1/18th of a second. In fact, his shoulder drops by almost 20 degrees. Obviously, this forceful

drop of the shoulder was caused by the impact of a bullet, which must have struck no more than

a few frames earlier, certainly between frames 234 and 237. Even lone-gunman theorist Jim

Moore acknowledges the implications of the shoulder drop:

Portions of the human frame don't suddenly drop 20 degrees without some significant

outside force acting upon them. And, when you consider that this shoulder drop took

place within an eighteenth of a second, that outside force must have been very significant

indeed. Impact on the Governor's back, then, most likely took place at Zapruder frame

237. (3:168-169)

Connally's doctors studied the Zapruder film and concluded that the moment of the missile's

impact was at about frame 236. The Governor himself selected frame 234 as the moment of

impact. The time span from frame 234 to frame 237 is less than one quarter of a second.

62

Some researchers maintain that the dramatic shoulder drop is actually an optical illusion caused

by the rapid movement of Jackie's hand. But Professor Josiah Thompson has proven that the

shoulder drop is not an optical illusion (59:74-76). Explains Thompson,

This shoulder collapse can be seen quite readily by comparing the slope of the Governor's

shoulder against some relatively constant line-- such as the top of the car door. When we

do this we find that the slope steepens dramatically at Z238 by some 20 degrees, and

remains steep through successive frames. (59:74)

Another key time indicator--one that cannot be disputed--is the pronounced puffing of Connally's

cheeks in frame 238. This was an involuntary reaction caused by the bullet passing through his

chest and forcing open his epiglottis (8:40). Dr. Charles Gregory, one of Connally's surgeons,

estimated that the bullet must have struck the Governor no more than one-quarter to one-half a

second before frame 238. So, using this time span, we would have to conclude Connally was hit

no earlier than frame 229. Connally himself insisted he was not hit prior to frame 231, and, as

mentioned, chose frame 234 as the moment of impact.

If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not have struck President

Kennedy. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that this same bullet could

have caused JFK to react the way he does in frame 225. In the Zapruder film Kennedy is seen to

be clearly reacting to a wound by frame 225. In this frame his right arm is at his chest and is bent

sharply inward. His left arm is at about the level of his diaphragm. Together, his arms appear to

be in somewhat of a football-like blocking position. If a missile transited Connally at frame 224,

it would have gone through Kennedy at almost the exact same fraction of a second, between

frames 223 and 224, or during 224 alone (as Posner opines). But Kennedy could not have

stopped waving his right hand, begun to move his left hand, and brought his right arm to his

upper chest, all in less than two frames (or in less than 1/9th of a second). Ballistics expert Dr.

Roger McCarthy has argued that it would have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right

around four frames, for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him doing in Z225:

Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How

much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the time that

frame 225 was filmed?

Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a shade more than 18

frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an 18th of a second or 56

thousandth of a second. . . .

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinion as to

when the President was hit with the bullet--how much before this point?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency or a

delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a message is delivered by either

traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a muscle before you can get movement.

You've experienced that every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it

was hot and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let go or move

fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just couldn't make your body

move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with you; it takes about a fifth of a second to

get all the hardware up to full power--to get the muscles to move.

63

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the

movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?

Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 at a minimum [i.e., at the latest, and notice this is

just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]

Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224 according

to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same bullet?

Dr. McCARTHY. NO. (63:235-236, emphasis added)

Other experts opine that the fastest possible reaction time could have been as little as .10 to .12

seconds. Two experts I consulted said such a speedy reaction was theoretically possible but they

indicated that a slightly slower response was more probable under the circumstances. In any

case, .10 seconds equates to 2.1 Zapruder frames. So, if we assume Kennedy reacted in .10

seconds, this means the bullet could have struck him no later than Z222.9. The earliest time

given by Warren Commission supporters for the alleged magic-bullet, lapel-flipping strike is

Z223.19. Thus, Kennedy's Z225 reaction could not have been in response to the same missile

that allegedly struck Connally at Z224. If we take the reaction time of .12 seconds, bearing in

mind that this time, like the .10 time, is unlikely, it's even more apparent that Kennedy's Z225

reaction could not have been in response to a shot at Z223-224.

As mentioned by Dr. McCarthy, wound ballistics expert Dr. Robert Piziali, under cross-

examination in the 1992 mock Oswald trial, said at least four frames would have had to elapse

between the bullet's impact and Kennedy's Z225 movement if that movement was in response to

the back wound.

Since the wound that caused Kennedy's reaction in frame 225 most likely did not occur after

frame 221, and positively no later than Z222.9, this means that if Connally was struck at frame

224, he must have been hit by a different bullet than the one to which Kennedy is clearly seen to

react by frame 225.

Of course, as mentioned, the HSCA photographic panel determined that Kennedy began reacting

to a wound much earlier than frame 225. Private researchers had reached the same conclusion

years earlier. Kennedy's actions in frame 225 constitute the latter stage of a reaction that began

about a second and a half earlier in response to the bullet that struck him at around frame 188-

190. Recently, Robert Harris discovered that in frame 188 Kennedy's cheeks appear to puff out.

the HSCA also concluded Kennedy was hit at about Z190.

Some Warren Commission defenders have speculated that the bullet that struck Kennedy in the

back went through his right brachial plexus and that a nerve impulse was sent straight from the

brachial plexus to the right arm. This theory is based on a high placement of the back wound, yet

the weight of the evidence clearly indicates the wound was well below the top of the shoulder

blade. Additionally, this theory fails to explain the movement of Kennedy's left arm.

Furthermore, even assuming the theory is correct, it would still not explain how JFK could have

snapped his right hand to his chest in less than 1/9th of a second (or in no more than 100

64

milliseconds). This theory also runs into trouble when viewed against the evidence in the

Zapruder film that Kennedy was hit at around Z188. Numerous researchers, in agreement with

the House Select Committee's photographic evidence panel, have found indications in the

Zapruder film that Kennedy begins to react to severe external stimulus at around Z200. This

reaction occurs at almost the exact same time when others in the film appear to respond to the

sound of a shot. The HSCA Report says the following about Kennedy's reactions during this

time frame:

The photographic evidence panel's observations were also relevant to the acoustics data

that indicated that the second shot hit the limousine's occupants at about Zapruder frames

188-191. The panel noted that at approximately Zapruder frame 200 the President's

movements suddenly freeze, as his right hand seemed to stop abruptly in the midst of a

waving motion. Then during frames 200-202, his head moves rapidly from right to left.

The sudden interruption of the president's hand-waving motion, coupled with his rapid

head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President

Kennedy's reaction to some "severe external stimulus." (HSCA Report, p. 82)

The HSCA noted that the blur (or "jiggle") analysis of the Zapruder film supported the finding

that a shot was fired at about Z186-190:

An original jiggle analysis, performed without knowledge of the results of the acoustical

analysis, showed strong indications of shots occurring at about frame 190 and at about

frame 310. The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the

acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gunfire at about

frame 160. (HSCA Report, pp. 83-84)

Lone-gunman theorists must now deny a shot was fired in the Z180s, because they now argue the

alleged magic-bullet hit occurred at Z224, and because they already acknowledge the Z312-313

shot and the pre-Z166 shot. So they can't afford to admit a shot was fired at about Z186-190,

since that would mean four shots, in spite of the impressive evidence the shot did in fact occur.

65

Chapter 12

The Magic Bullet

Posner embraces the dubious single-bullet theory, which says that a single bullet, also known as

the "magic bullet," struck Kennedy in the "upper back," exited his throat, passed through

Governor John Connally, causing all of his wounds, yet emerged in nearly pristine condition,

suffering only a "slight" flattening at its base and losing no more than three grains of its

substance (6:334-340; Dr. John Nichols, a professor of pathology, argued that the missile's

alleged journey could not have produced the amount of flattening that the bullet suffered, even

though it appears to be rather slight). This bullet is officially labeled as Commission Exhibit

(CE) 399.

The theory is dubious from the outset because the weight of the evidence indicates that the magic

bullet was not the object that injured Connally's thigh. According to the Parkland doctors and the

Warren Commission, the object that injured Connally's thigh deposited a fragment in the femur

bone. But did a bullet strike the thigh? Or was it just a fragment? The initial police report on the

thigh wound, citing Parkland doctors, stated that it was caused by a fragment. Connally's own

press secretary, Bill Stinson, said the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. Dr.

Malcolm Perry, who assisted with the surgery on the thigh, told Harold Weisberg that the thigh

wound was caused by a fragment, not by a whole missile. And Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's

chest surgeon, has likewise said that only a fragment struck the thigh.

Even two members of the Warren Commission found the single-bullet theory so implausible that

they eventually rejected it. The autopsy doctors also balked at the idea. One of those autopsists,

Dr. Pierre Finck, testified under oath in 1969 that during the autopsy he could not find an exit

point for the back wound (9:291). Another one of the autopsists, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, told

author Josiah Thompson that all three autopsy doctors probed the back wound with their fingers

but could not penetrate more than an inch or two (5:371). Similarly, James Jenkins, one of the

medical technicians who assisted with JFK's autopsy, says the back wound was probed and that

it had no point of exit.

Retired U.S. Navy pathologist Dr. Robert Karnei, who watched most of the autopsy, likewise

recalls the probing of the back wound and the determination that it had no exit point. Moreover,

three FBI reports on the autopsy confirm the probing and the back wound's limited depth (18:83-

84, 149-169). Recently released documents relating to the autopsy show that on the night of the

autopsy, the autopsy pathologists were absolutely, positively certain the back wound had no exit

point. The doctors probed the wound--they even removed the chest organs and probed the

wound again. They could see clearly that the back wound had not exit point.

As for the throat wound itself, the Dallas doctor who performed a tracheostomy over it described

it in considerable detail, and said it was a very small, fairly neatly defined, circular puncture--in

short, it had all the traits typical of a bullet's point of entry.

66

What about the fact that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone

than are missing from CE 399? Posner replies that one of Connally's surgeons, Dr. Charles

Gregory, said the fragments that were removed from the Governor's wrist were merely "flakes of

metal" and that they weighed less than a postage stamp (6:339-340). That is not how Nurse

Audrey Bell remembers it at all. Nurse Bell is the Parkland Hospital operating-room nurse who

handled the fragments that were removed from the Governor's wrist. She insists the fragments

were not merely flakes but were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in

length by 2 millimeters wide (18:558; 10:304, 312). This squares with the recollection of one of

Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988

documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet

that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet

[CE 399] shows" (cf. 71:65-66; 4:77).

There didn't seem to be any question about the wrist fragments in the months after the shooting.

The Parkland Hospital operative record stated that "small bits of metal were encountered at

various levels" of the wrist wound, and that "wherever they were identified and could be picked

up were picked up and have been submitted to the pathology department for identification and

examination" (32:533, emphasis added; cf. 4:76). Asked if CE 399 could have been the bullet

that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Finck, one of Kennedy's autopsists, answered, "No, for the

reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," and he based this conclusion in

large part on the Parkland Hospital operative record (9:297). Dr. James Humes, the chief

pathologist at the autopsy, understood the clear implications of the operative record's wording.

Dr. Humes was asked if CE 399 could have been either the missile that struck the head or the one

that wounded Connally's wrist. He replied in the negative and cited the Parkland operative record

as the basis for his conclusion:

Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as

Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the

missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was

the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at

this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. (The article, previously marked Commission

Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by

anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the

record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.

Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone

through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in

Exhibit No. 388?

Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's

right wrist?

67

Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two

answers?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.

Commander HUMES. The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President

showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as

has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in

the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.

Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence

referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:

"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these

were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to

the pathology department for identification and examination."

The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these

wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I

do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

(2 H 374-375)

Posner asserts that Dr. Vincent Guinn's neutron activation analysis (NAA), which was done at

the request of the HSCA, proved that bullet fragments taken from Connally's wrist and

Kennedy's brain matched samples from CE 399 (6:341-342). As mentioned, the magic bullet

supposedly passed through both Kennedy and Connally. Therefore, according to Posner, Guinn's

NAA is evidence of Oswald's guilt and of the single-bullet theory. What are the facts? Guinn

himself conceded he could not vouch for the authenticity of the fragments he was given to test.

He also acknowledged that the wrist fragments he tested did not weigh the same as any of the

fragments listed as evidence by the Warren Commission (5:446-447; 18:556-558). Additionally,

Guinn reportedly told George Lardner of The Washington Post that the fragments which he was

told had come from Kennedy's brain did not weigh the same as any of the four brain fragments

tested by the FBI in 1964 (2:495 n 6). A recently released HSCA file confirms that Guinn did not

test any of the same samples that the FBI tested.

Furthermore, Guinn's reported NAA results appeared to contradict an earlier NAA test conducted

by the FBI. In 1964 the FBI subjected fragments from Connally's wrist and Kennedy's brain, and

fragments from the car, along with material from CE 399, to NAA. This test, according to many

researchers who have studied its results, indicated the wrist and brain fragments did not match

CE 399, thus destroying the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin scenario, which could

explain why the results of the FBI's NAA were suppressed until their release was forced in 1974

by a suit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (7:87-89; 5:446-447). Guinn, however,

claimed that the FBI's NAA actually agreed with his results, and that the scientists who

conducted that analysis simply misread their own data.

Guinn told the Select Committee that the samples he tested were "essentially similar." However,

critics of Guinn's work maintain that "any variation at all in the molecular structure indicates that

different batches of metal are involved. Thus, 'essentially similar' is not good enough" (63:116).

68

Researcher Wallace Milam studied Guinn's tests and concluded Guinn misrepresented his own

test data when he testified before the Select Committee:

. . . he presented findings from his own laboratory tests which contradicted the very

hypothesis which is the basis of his work: that fragments from the same Mannlicher

bullet exhibit a degree of homogeneity. "Homogeneity," as it relates to NAA and as

Guinn used the term, meant that pieces of bullet lead taken from the same Western

Cartridge Company 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bullet contained the same amounts of

significant trace elements, particularly antimony. This served as the basis for his

crucial matches of bullet fragments in the Kennedy case--in short, as the basis of

everything significant Guinn told the HSCA.

But Guinn's own tests demonstrate that this homogeneity, in fact, does not exist.

Worse, his earlier reporting of test results shows that Guinn was aware of this crucial

lack of homogeneity--yet he proceeded to give testimony contradicting his laboratory

findings. (66:2, emphasis added)

Dr. Michael Kurtz is likewise skeptical of Guinn's NAA test. Says Dr. Kurtz,

On the surface, the neutron activation analysis tests performed by Dr. Guinn provided

strong support both for the single-bullet theory and for the contention that the fatal head

shot was fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. Since the write fragments and Bullet 399

[the alleged "magic bullet" of the single-bullet theory] matched each other, the committee

accepted Dr. Guinn's thesis that they came from the same bullet. Likewise, the committee

endorsed the Guinn theory that the head and limousine fragments came from the same

bullet.

A more careful analysis of the neutron activation analysis tests, however, shows

numerous deficiencies that contest all of Dr. Guinn's central conclusions. First, of the

more than thirty bullet fragments in John Kennedy's head, only two were subjected to the

test. The rest remained embedded in brain tissue and skull bone. That two head fragments

matched each other does not mean that others did so. Second, Dr. Guinn did not analyze

the large copper fragment found in the limousine. The origin of that fragment, therefore,

remains scientifically unproven. Third, Dr. Guinn had previously performed neutron

activation analysis on Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, one of the bullets being from the

same manufacture and production lot (Western Cartridge Company, lot 6003) as bullets

from Oswald's rifle. None of the bullets matched each other. Moreover, Guinn analyzed

pieces of the same bullet, and they, too, failed to match. For example, the four pieces of

the bullet from lot 6003 had figures ranging from 7.9 to 15.9 parts per million (ppm.)

silver, from 80 to 732 ppm. antimony, and from 17 to 62 ppm. copper. Dr. Guinn himself

admitted that "some Mannlicher-Carcano bullets cannot be distinguished from each

other."

The most serious shortcoming in Dr. Guinn's analysis is his failure to properly interpret

the data from the assassination fragments. For example, the Connally wrist fragment

contained 25 percent more silver and 850 percent more copper than Bullet 399. It also

contained 2400 percent more sodium and 1100 percent more chlorine, and it contained

8.1 ppm. aluminum, while Bullet 399 contained none. Similarly, the Kennedy head

fragments and limousine fragments contained wide disparities in their chemical

69

composition. Guinn and the committee, therefore, were hardly justified in their

conclusions about "matches." (60:180-181)

Yet another problem with the single-bullet theory is the fact that Kennedy and Connally were

never aligned in such a way that a bullet exiting the President's throat could have struck Connally

under the right armpit. Posner claims that computer-generated reverse projection cones establish

that the shots came from the southeast end of the Book Depository (6:334-335). But there are

major problems with Posner's trajectory scenario.

In his illustration entitled "View from above," Posner depicts Connally as leaning considerably

to his left and having his shoulders turned nearly halfway around to his right at Z224 (6:479).

Posner must do this in order to place the Governor in the proper position to receive the bullet that

allegedly exited Kennedy's throat. But this frame plainly and clearly shows Connally sitting

upright, with his shoulders nearly square to the seat, and with only his head turned noticeably to

the right. An easy way to orient the position of Connally's torso, aside from noting that his

shoulders are nearly square to the seat, is to compare the position of his shoulders to that of the

roll bar and the sun vizors at the top of the windshield. Both the roll bar and the vizors form lines

that run straight across the car horizontally and that parallel each other. In frame 224 we see that

Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to both the roll bar and the vizors. While his head is

turned about halfway to the right, his torso is clearly facing more or less straight ahead. Anyone

can look at frame 224 and see this for themselves. (Two lone-gunman theorists recently

acknowledged that Connally's torso is only rotated 10-15 degrees in Z224.)

Posner's alignment theory assumes that Connally was struck at Z-frame 224. But the Zapruder

film appears to show he was hit at right around frame 237, for in frame 238 his right shoulder is

driven 20 degrees downward, his cheeks puff up, his hair is disarranged, and a pained expression

appears on his face. The sharp shoulder drop occurs within 1/18th of a second, obviously in

response to the force of the bullet's impact. As mentioned, the very visible puffing of the cheeks

was an involuntary reaction that resulted from the missile's passing through the chest (8:40).

Moreover, if Connally was hit at Z224, why does he show no dramatic signs of being struck until

frame 238, three-quarters of a second later (8:40)? A bullet flipping up Connally's lapel at frame

224 would have entered the back in that same frame. Dr. Gregory estimated that the interval

between the impact of the bullet and the Governor's reaction to it would have been no more than

one-quarter to one-half a second (8:40). This is not surprising, since the shot that went through

Connally's chest caused an involuntary opening of his epiglottis, and the escaping air then forced

his mouth to open, as seen in the Zapruder film (8:40). Posner's postulated hit at frame 224 woud

appear to leave too much of a lapse between impact and reaction. However, one can make the

argument that the Z237-238 reaction actually started just after Z224. This is a possibility.

In presenting his trajectory reconstruction, Posner assumes the magic bullet hit Kennedy at the

base of the neck. However, the wound in question was actually located several inches down in

the back, at the third thoracic vertebra. This fact is confirmed by the death certificate, by an

autopsy face sheet diagram, by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and jacket, by several

witnesses who saw the wound, and by an FBI report on the autopsy written on the night of the

assassination. The HSCA's forensic pathology panel established that the autopsy photos show

the wound was nearly two inches lower than where the Warren Commission placed it in the

70

Rydberg drawing. Furthermore, as mentioned, the back wound was probed and found to have no

point of exit.

Warren Commission apologists attempt to explain the holes in Kennedy's shirt and coat by

claiming that the shirt and coat were hunched up on his back when the magic bullet struck. JFK,

say the apologists, was waving his right hand above his head, causing his shirt and coat to hunch

up his back. Therefore, when the bullet hit, the shirt and coat were punctured several inches

lower than they would have been if they hadn't been bunched up. This suggestion is not only

implausible, it is also contrary to the photographic evidence (3:154-155; 61:27). While certain

photos of the motorcade show that Kennedy's coat was bunched at times, other photos show that

at other times the coat lay smoothly on his back, and not a single picture shows Kennedy's coat

hunched up to the degree required by the bunched-clothing theory. Dr. John Lattimer, a Warren

Commission supporter, illustrated in a drawing for a 1972 article in Resident and Staff Physician

that Kennedy's coat would have had to bunch up above the shirt collar in order to account for the

location of the bullet holes in the coat and shirt (75:37, figure 2). No photograph of the

motorcade shows Kennedy's coat bunched to such a degree.

Noticeably absent from Posner's alignment theory is any discussion of the incompatible angles at

which the magic bullet would have had to travel. For example, according to chief autopsy

pathologist, Dr. James Humes, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back penetrated at a

downward angle of 45 degrees to 60 degrees. The Select Committee's trajectory expert said the

downward angle was 21 degrees. But the bullet that injured Connally entered at a downward

angle of 27 degrees (2:63; 4:74-75). To further complicate matters, the HSCA's medical panel

unanimously concluded that the magic bullet had a "slightly upward trajectory" as it allegedly

transited JFK's neck and exited the throat (28:435, emphasis added; 2:390). How could a bullet

fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository have transited the body and exited the neck at

any kind of an upward angle (or even an even angle or an only slightly downward angle)? And

how could a bullet exiting JFK's throat at a slightly upward angle have entered Connally's back

at a downward angle of over 20 degrees? These are geometric impossibilities, unless one wants

to assume that Kennedy was leaning far forward when he was hit and/or that his head was tilted

markedly forward. Indeed, as was shown in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President

Kennedy?, the only way to make the magic bullet's vertical trajectory work is to assume that JFK

was leaning very far forward and that Connally was leaning noticeably backward at the same

time. But the HSCA's own trajectory expert said Kennedy was leaning forward by no more than

18 degrees (he put JFK's forward lean at between 11 and 18 degrees), and the Warren

Commission noted that Connally was sitting "erect."

Thomas Canning, the NASA scientist who prepared the Committee's trajectory analysis, found it

necessary to, in effect, ignore the medical panel's finding about the magic bullet's trajectory,

though I'm sure he would deny this. Canning assumed the missile's entry point was very close to

the base of the neck. Canning had to employ these and other assumptions in order to make his

trajectory analysis seem plausible. Additionally, Canning found that he could not get his vertical

trajectory lines to match up when he considered the back wound's location as determined by the

Committee's medical panel--even that was too low. Canning brushed this problem aside as a

meaningless "experimental error." In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had

to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in

the middle of the jump seat (see 8:item number 28). Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt

to move Connally that far to the left.

71

No magic-bullet alignment theory has yet explained how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's

nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. The windshield

damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the sixth-

floor window (8:248). The Select Committee speculated that the damage was caused by the

supposed rear-head-shot bullet after it exited the skull, but Canning stated that the alleged

vertical trajectory of this supposed bullet didn't line up well with the windshield damage (8:246).

There is also the fact that the chrome above the windshield was dented by a bullet (or by a very

large fragment). If the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from

the head shot, then it is especially hard to understand how a head-shot fragment could have

caused the deep circular dent in the windshield's chrome (the dent was a good inch or two above

the windshield damage).

Shortly before he died, Governor Connally volunteered some potentially important information

relating to the magic bullet. In his autobiography he recounted the discovery of what he assumed

was CE 399. The problem is that his account contradicts the official version of the bullet's

discovery. According to Connally, the bullet fell from his body when he was in Trauma Room 2

and was then picked up by a nurse (13:17). It is hard to exaggerate the potential implications of

the Governor's revelation. Among other things, if it is accurate, it would appear to refute the

Warren Commission's account of the magic bullet's discovery, and would constitute further

evidence that CE 399 was planted. It is more likely, though, that Connally was referring to a

fragment, yet that would be one fragment too many for the single-bullet theory.

72

Chapter 13

The Fatal Head Shot and the Zapruder Film

Posner attempts to explain why the Zapruder film shows JFK's upper body rocketing backward

in reaction to the fatal head shot (6:315-316). Citing the work of Drs. Luis Alvarez and John

Lattimer, Posner says the backward snap of Kennedy's upper body resulted, not from a shot from

the front, but from a neuromuscular reaction and the so-called "jet effect" after a bullet entered

JFK's head from behind.

This is a far cry from the days when Warren Commission member Allen Dulles denied the

Zapruder film showed Kennedy moving backward in response to the final shot. Gone, too, are

the days when it was proposed that the limousine suddenly lurched forward at the precise

moment of the last shot and thus caused the President's fierce backward motion. We can also rest

assured that CBS's Dan Rather will never again tell a nationwide audience, as he did the day

after the assassination, that in the Zapruder film Kennedy's head is thrust forward by the final

shot (although Rather might have been describing a hit on JFK's head that was later almost

completely deleted from the Zapruder film--see below).

Now we are told the President was indeed rocketed violently backward but that this movement

was caused by a neuromuscular reaction and/or by the jet effect. There are serious problems with

these theories. Neither is really credible. One expert told the HSCA that neuromuscular reactions

normally do not begin for several minutes after the upper brain centers have been separated from

the brain stem and the spinal cord, and such reactions do not resemble Kennedy's response to the

fatal head shot. Former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt explained:

By 1975, when a copy of the Zapruder film was shown on national television, the violent

rearward head-snap at last had to be given some official explanation. The HSCA

addressed the question and heard expert testimony [from one questionable expert] that the

motion of Kennedy's body could have been a neurological spasm. According to the Select

Committee report, the expert concluded that "nerve damage from a bullet entering the

President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have

caused his head to move toward the rear." A motion picture was shown of a goat being

shot in the head, causing all the goat's muscles to go into a violent, involuntary spasm.

Clearly, this does not appear to be what happened to Kennedy, whose whole appears to

go limp as he is thrown backward. There is no splaying of his limbs, as in the shooting of

the goat. (71:129-130).

Josiah Thompson notes that the neuromuscular-reaction theory conflicts with what is known

about human reflex actions:

The extremely small time factor combined with the relatively large mass of the

President's head would tend to rule out such an explanation. The fastest reflex action

known to science--the startle response--takes place over an interval of 40 to 200

milliseconds. Beginning with an eyeblink in 40 milliseconds, the response wave moves

73

the head forward in 83 milliseconds, and then continues downward reaching the knees in

200 milliseconds. The change in direction we observe [i.e., the change from the forward

motion of JFK's head to the more violent rearward motion] occurs in 56 milliseconds

(1/18th second), and involves not the negligible mass of an eyelid but the considerable

mass of a human head moving forward under an acceleration of several g's. (59:93)

I asked Dr. Robert Zacharko, a neuroscientist at Carleton University in Canada, about the theory

that JFK's backward head snap was caused by a neuromuscular reaction. I wrote to Dr. Zacharko

as follows:

In frames 312-313 of the Zapruder film, we see Kennedy's head knocked forward, but

then, suddenly, beginning in frame 314, we see his head and upper body jolted violently

backward and to the left as the right frontal area of his skull explodes. One theory says

that this violent backward motion was the result of a neuromuscular reaction. This

reaction would have had to occur in no more than 56 milliseconds. I have two questions

about this theory:

1. Some object to this theory on the basis that the reaction could not have occurred so

quickly. They point out that the fastest involuntary reaction known to man is the eye

blink, which takes about 40 milliseconds. They argue that this indicates that the backward

head snap would have taken longer to occur, since it involved much more mass. One

author phrases this objection as follows:

. . . it [the head] is suddenly driven forward between frames 312 and 313.

Amazingly, in the very next frame, 314, it is already moving backward, a movement it

continues in succeeding frames until the President's shoulders strike the seat cushion at

Z321. . . . The extremely small time factor combined with the relatively large mass of the

President's head would tend to rule out such an explanation [i.e., the neuromuscular-

reaction theory].

The fastest reflex reaction known to science--the startle response--takes place over

an interval of 40 to 200 milliseconds. Beginning with an eyeblink in 40 milliseconds, the

response wave moves the head forward in 83 milliseconds, and then continues downward

reaching the knees in 200 milliseconds. The change in direction we observe [in the head

snap] occurs in 56 milliseconds (1/18th/second), and involves not the negligible mass of

an eyelid but the considerable mass of a human head moving forward with an

acceleration of several g's.

What is your opinion on the speed of the alleged neuromuscular reaction?

2. One author has objected to the neuromuscular-reaction theory on the following basis:

A "massive neuromuscular reaction," according to Messrs. Ford and Belin, occurs

when there is "massive damage inflicted to nerve centers of the brain." The nerve centers

of the brain are the pons, the medulla, the cerebellum--all located in the rear of the brain.

According to the Warren Commission and the HSCA, the head shot damaged the right

cerebral hemisphere of Kennedy's brain--not a nerve coordination center, not capable of

causing a "massive neuromuscular reaction."

74

The neuromuscular reaction that supposedly accounts for the backward snap of

Kennedy's head when struck by a bullet from behind could happen only if a major

coordinating center of the brain is damaged. According to the x-rays and autopsy photos

that lone-gunman theorists champion as evidence of a shot from behind, those areas of

the brain are intact.

What is your opinion of this objection to the neuromuscular-reaction theory?

Dr. Zacharko responded as follows in an e-mail dated 8 February 1999:

If you ask any neuroscientist what a neuromuscular effect is they will tell you that it

refers to some interface of nerve and muscle for example. In some cases a simple reflex

response (e.g., knee jerk for example). Can certain reflexes be influenced? Certainly. Do

head movements fall into such a category? No. The head movements that you are

referring to are following the laws of physics. With all due respect to Belin and Ford I

would ask what medical references or more precisely what research references are being

using to document arguments of neuromuscular reactivity. Simply stated there are none.

The pons and medulla contain centres for respiration, cardiovascular regulation, visceral

reactivity and the like. The cerebellum is also present at this level. Damage to these areas

will interrupt respiration and heart rhythm and affect motor coordination. Neural damage

per se associated with bullet entry will not cause exaggerated head movement of the type

you see in the Zapruder film. In fact there are no brain sites that will. This neuromuscular

reactivity argument is simply nonsense. [Note: One could make the argument, ludicrous

as it may sound, that Kennedy actually saw the bullet approaching and jerked his head

back reflexively to avoid being hit.]

The second author does not appear to be any more informed than either Belin or Ford.

There is no such thing as a major coordinating centre. Those arguments were largely

discounted in the 1960's. The brain simply does not act in such a fashion. It is a

coordinated system. Actually there is a system which is referred to as the extrapyramidal

motor system, which runs from the mesencephalon to the forebrain. It controls voluntary

movement. If this system was to discharge, you would effect gross motor output. Such

discharge would typically represent the invasion of seizure like activity to motor areas. It

would not be coordinated and certainly not of the type evident in the Zapruder film.

The bottom line is that the head movements are reactions to the direction of bullet entry.

They are not the product of central nervous system damage. It would almost seem that

certain myths are maintained in the absence of documented data. Information from half-

sources of documentation appear to blend with legitimate sources of information to

provide muddled scenarios.

Sincerely,

Dr Robert M. Zacharko, Life Sciences Research Building, Institute of Neuroscience,

Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

As for the jet-effect hypothesis, ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan gave testimony to the HSCA

that tended to refute the theory, and he himself seemed to implicitly reject it. Among other

things, Sturdivan pointed out that the right-frontal explosion seen in the Zapruder film would not

75

have had sufficient force to rapidly propel JFK's upper body backward and to the left (1 HSCA

423). Furthermore, Sturdivan noted that whatever force was created by the right-frontal spray

would have pushed Kennedy straight to the left, not backward and to the left. Some proponents

of the jet-effect theory appeal to Newton's third law as support for the idea, but physics instructor

Ken Degazio argues this suggestion is invalid (10:367-368).

Lone-gunman theorists cite Dr. Luis Alvarez's experiments with melons, saying the experiments

prove the jet-effect theory is plausible. Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti explains why

Alvarez's tests aren't relevant and details one of the reasons the jet-effect theory is implausible:

The requirements for the “jet effect” to dominate and cause a motion towards the shooter

are threefold and they are; the early development of a temporary cavity pressure, a low

shear force through the skin or casing of the object, and an entrance side sealing of the

permanent cavity. Although a “jet effect” may have occurred in Dr. Alvarez’s melon

tests, the main trick was in using an object with a soft skin or casing (the melon) to

reduce the shear force. The early temporary cavity produced by the lead projectile of the

hunting ammunition also helped. The taping of the melon rind would allow it to resist any

hoop stress due to internal pressure. Since the tensile strength of the melon rind is low,

hoop stress could have caused a fracture and spoiled the test. The tape would also provide

for a small entrance and better chance for permanent cavity sealing at the entrance side.

The use of tape on the melons also provided these advantages without truly replicating

the human skull. While the tape would tend to mock up the tensile strength of the human

cranium, it would not enhance the shear strength very much. It is the shear strength that is

operative here not the tensile strength. The melon tests were thus misleading and the “jet

effect” seen on the melons, with the use of hunting ammunition and tape, really has no

place in attempting to explain away the back and to the left head motion of President

Kennedy as being possible if hit from the rear.

The shear forces generated by the bullet penetrating through the much higher shear

strength of the President’s skull would preclude the appearance of a “jet effect” induced

motion in the assassination. This was demonstrated at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in

1978 during testing done for the HSCA. Ten human skulls, filled with the same tissue

replicating material as that used by the Army Wound Ballistics Research program, were

shot with 6.5 millimeter ammunition and all 10 skulls went forward, in the direction of

the bullet. None went backward. (85:9-10)

Advocates of the jet-effect theory not only assume that the bullet came from behind, but also that

no substantial amount of skull, if any at all, was blown out from the right rear part of the head.

Yet, as we have seen, there is compelling eyewitness testimony, supported by the original

Parkland Hospital reports, that there was a large, exit-type wound in the right rear area of

Kennedy's head.

In 1988 3M's Comtal Corporation analyzed the fatal head shot in the Nix film. Comtal

specializes in photographic analysis through computerized enhancements. Jack Anderson

reported in his 1988 documentary Who Murdered JFK? that the Comtal study determined that

"the fatal gunshot came from in front of the president's car . . . from the grassy knoll."

How does Posner explain the fact that the police officers who were riding to the left rear of the

limousine were forcefully splattered with JFK's blood and brain tissue? He resorts to invention.

76

He claims that in an "enhanced" version of the Zapruder film "the two officers drive right into

the head spray, which actually shot up and to the front of the President" (6:316 n). The Zapruder

film shows no such thing. The spray from the right frontal explosion blows mostly forward and

also upward and toward Zapruder's camera, as Dr. Sturdivan noted during the HSCA hearings,

and it dissipates very quickly. And, as will be discussed below, if a large amount of the spray had

blown to the left side of the limousine, it would have plastered Mrs. Kennedy, but the Zapruder

film clearly shows this did not occur.

As for the direction of the spray from Kennedy's head, much of it was blown backward, not just

forward, indicating a shot from the front. Officer Hargis, riding just behind the limousine's left

rear bumper, was splattered by blood and brain matter, and was struck so forcefully by a

particulate matter that at first he thought he himself had been hit (Itek's experts acknowledged

that this is the plain sense of Hargis's statements on the subject). Officer B. J. Martin, who was

on Hargis's left, looked to his right after the first shots; later, he found blood stains on the left

side of his helmet, as well as on his windshield. Only blood spraying from the rear of JFK's head

could have reached all the way out to Officer Martin. There is also the fact that a piece of skull

from the rear of the President's head was blown backward and to the left by the fatal head shot

(5:13-15; 10:172; 18:316-317; cf. 18:530-533). There are indications that one skull fragment,

known as the Harper fragment, was blown backward with such force that it flew at least ten feet

before landing, although the FBI inexplicably failed to establish exactly where the fragment

landed (14:32; 2:231). Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm, who was standing across the street

from the grassy knoll, saw a piece of skull blown backward and to the left when the fatal shot

struck the President (18:44, 96, 316, 331 n).

W. Anthony Marsh, citing the research of Dr. Luis Alvarez, argues that the Zapruder film shows

that all of the limousine's occupants were moving forward just before the final shot because the

driver had suddenly slowed the car down (62). If so, then Kennedy's sudden backward

movement beginning at frame 313 is even harder to attribute to a shot from behind.

Some scientists have stated that no bullet could have knocked Kennedy's head and the rest of his

upper body so violently to the rear. Other experts dispute this assertion. Itek analyzed the

Zapruder film and concluded the rearward motion of Kennedy's torso resulted from Mrs.

Kennedy's pushing him backward in a startle reaction to the fatal head shot. This conclusion has

been strongly challenged by many Warren Commission critics, and has not been generally

accepted by Commission supporters either. However, if Itek's conclusion is correct, and if in fact

no bullet could have caused the backward motion of JFK's upper body, then Itek's theory could

explain the rearward motion of the torso, as well as the explosion on the right front part of

Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film. That explosion, according to some wound ballistics

experts, is typical of the impact of a high-velocity missile.

Some experts now believe the Zapruder film was edited within weeks of the assassination, that

there were two head shots, and that the backward head snap was originally much slower and was

actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him. This agrees somewhat

with Itek's finding that Jackie was the cause of the backward head snap.

Recent research has uncovered evidence that the Zapruder film has been significantly altered,

and that what we now see as one head shot is actually made up of remnants of two head shots

that were combined into a single event. Not only were two head shots combined into one, say

77

some researchers, but frames from the shot to the head from the front were removed, which made

the rearward motion appear to be more rapid than it really was. Thus, in the original Zapruder

film, the motion of Kennedy's upper body to the rear was slower, less dramatic.

As mentioned, Dan Rather, who viewed the Zapruder film the day after the shooting, said it

showed Kennedy being knocked strongly forward. Other witnesses spoke of seeing the same

thing. Livingstone says the following:

Why would the forgers remove the violent forward head movement? Because they had a

film showing two major and separates shots to the head almost a second apart from

different directions, and had to eliminate one of them. . . . The forgers compressed the

two shots into one. (77:143, original emphasis)

Researchers have found other signs of tampering in the Zapruder film (e.g., 10:338-339, 361-

366). In 1976 it was learned through recently declassified documents that the Zapruder film was

diverted to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, probably on the night of

assassination (10:369-370; 5:69). This might explain the tampering evident in the film. The signs

of alteration include the fact that in key frames after the head shot the rear of JFK's head is

blacked out. Also, a strange "blob" appears on the right side of Kennedy's head, about halfway

between the right eye and the right ear, indicating a massive wound in the right frontal region.

However, there is no such right-frontal damage in the autopsy photos.

Some Warren Commission critics have long wondered about the red mist that suddenly bursts

out of Kennedy's head and then disappears in just a few frames. This red mist appears at the

beginning of the frontal explosion which spews brain matter forward in Zapruder frames 313-

318. The mist appears to disappear faster than is physically possible (77:131-133).

While the blob and the red-misty burst are questionable, the forward explosion and spray seem to

indicate a shot from the front, according to some ballistics experts. During the A & E Network's

The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, defense attorney Gerry Spence noted that in frame 312, which

was taken a split second before the fatal shot, Jackie Kennedy's face is in "the very proximity" of

her husband's head, and that, therefore, if the shot came from behind the spraying brain matter

should cover her face "almost totally." Yet, this is not the case. Furthermore, if, as Posner claims,

the two patrolmen on the left side of the car drove into the spray, then a large amount of spray

would have had to spew leftward from the President's head, and it would have virtually covered

Mrs. Kennedy's face. But in the Zapruder film the spray does not do this. Another way the

patrolmen could have driven into particulate matter would be if a substantial amount of spray

from the right-frontal explosion veered leftward and remained airborne for a second or so. But

this doesn't happen in the Zapruder film either.

The right-frontal explosion and the resulting spray, according to several experts, give the

appearance of being the result of the impact of a high-velocity missile (see, for example, 80:17-

19; 63:156, 237-239). In addition, there is a considerable amount of testimony indicating that a

bullet struck the President in the right front part of the head. Secret Service agent Sam Kinney

said he saw one shot "strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to

his left" (72:419). This, of course, was the fatal shot. Two other witnesses, Marilyn Sitzman and

Bill Newman, were even more specific: They said it appeared to them as though a bullet struck

JFK in the area of the right temple. In harmony with these accounts, White House aide Malcolm

Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that the fatal bullet entered "the right temple," and he

78

even pointed to his own right temple to illustrate his statement (18:330). Former Bethesda

mortician Tom Robinson, who reassembled Kennedy's skull after the autopsy, has reported that

he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and he believes it was in the right temple 10:580). He

filled the hole with wax. Two doctors at Parkland Hospital spoke of an entry in the President's

left temple, and some researchers have suggested the doctors simply confused their left with

Kennedy's left and were actually describing an entry in the right temple.

James Curtis Jenkins, a Navy medical technician who assisted with the autopsy, said, "I might

have gone along with right temple" (63:691, original emphasis). Jenkins was then asked if there

might have been an entry wound in the right temple, and he replied,

Yeah. And the opening and the way the bone was damaged behind the head would have

definitely been a type of exit wound. The reason I have said this is I saw this before in

other wounds and it was very striking. (63:692, original emphasis)

Jenkins added that there was some gray discoloration of the skull and skin in the right temple

area that possibly could have been caused by lead (63:192).

79

Chapter 14

The Jim Garrison Prosecution of Clay Shaw

It would take literally dozens of pages to respond to all of the distortions, omissions, and errors

in Posner's treatment of Jim Garrison (6:423-452). Time only permits me to briefly summarize

the Garrison affair and to answer a few of Posner's claims.

On March 1, 1967, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison arrested international

businessman and New Orleans resident Clay Shaw on the charge of conspiring to assassinate

President Kennedy. Essentially, Garrison claimed that Shaw had ties to the CIA and that he had

participated in a CIA-connected plot to kill JFK. Garrison said one of Shaw's confederates was

David Ferrie, an ultra-radical right-winger with CIA and Mafia connections. Garrison also

argued that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other, and that Ferrie and Oswald knew and worked

with a man named Guy Banister. Two years later, the case went to court, and on February 28,

1969, the jury found Shaw not guilty. (Interestingly, the two alternate jurors voted guilty.)

Jim Garrison

The verdict was not surprising since Garrison's case had been devastated by one act of sabotage

after another in the two years leading up to the trial. Some of Garrison's key witnesses either died

suddenly under strange circumstances (e.g., David Ferrie) or were admittedly murdered (e.g.,

Eladio del Valle). Several important witnesses and potential suspects fled to other states and

avoided Garrison's attempts to extradite them. The federal government refused to turn over

80

important evidence relating to the assassination. The government also refused to serve Garrison's

subpoenas on certain CIA and FBI officials. Garrison's office was infiltrated by people who were

trying to help Shaw, some of whom were allegedly sent by the CIA or the FBI. In fact, the

HSCA would later learn that the CIA had indeed planted people on Garrison's staff (61:239,

375). Most of the major American news media conducted an unrelenting smear campaign against

Garrison and his investigation. Many of Garrison's files, including his witness list, were stolen

and given to Shaw's defense team. And, the trial judge would not allow the presentation of a key

piece of evidence that proved Shaw had used an incriminating alias.

But, according to Posner, Garrison had absolutely no case. To believe Posner, it was all a giant,

outright fabrication. This is the same Posner who balks at any suggestion that some Dallas law

enforcement personnel altered or planted evidence against Oswald Posner paints Garrison as a

power-hungry, unscrupulous tyrant who knowingly prosecuted an innocent man for personal

gain.

And what of Clay Shaw? Posner says he was just an ordinary businessman, a harmless poet and

playwright, with no ties whatsoever to the CIA. Posner claims Shaw never used the alias Clay

Bertrand. In fact, according to Posner, there was no such person. And as for David Ferrie,

Posner insists there is no evidence that Shaw knew him.

As mentioned, it would take dozens of pages to adequately review Posner's attack on Garrison.

What follows is a survey of some of Posner's errors and omissions.

* Shaw sat on the boards of two secretive international companies that were suspected of having

fascist leanings and intelligence connections. Both companies, Permindex and the Centro

Mondiale Commerciale (CMC), were widely regarded as being fronts for the CIA. CMC was

expelled from Italy and Switzerland for allegedly engaging in illegal political-espionage

activities on behalf of the CIA. Permindex was publicly accused by French president Charles de

Gaulle of channeling funds to the violent and outlawed Secret Army Organization, which tried to

assassinate him on several occasions. One might wonder how Posner squares all of this with his

picture of Shaw as the innocent playwright-businessman. He doesn't. He says nothing about

Shaw's involvement with these two companies.

* Posner claims Shaw had no CIA connections. But Shaw's lengthy association with the Agency

was disclosed in a CIA document that was released in 1977. Between 1949 and 1956, Shaw filed

thirty reports with the CIA. Three former intelligence agents have linked Shaw to the CIA.

These same agents also maintain that Shaw conducted some of his intelligence activities in

concert with Guy Bannister and David Ferrie, both of whom are strongly suspected of having

participated in the framing of Oswald as the patsy (9:140, 385 n 22; 7:287; 5:500; 11:215-217).

Former CIA director Richard Helms admitted under oath in 1979 that Shaw had been a CIA

contact of the Domestic Contact Division (43:222-224). A CIA document released in 1993 and

made available at the National Archives discloses that Shaw had a covert clearance for a top

secret CIA project code-named QKENCHANT (41:21). On a related note, a recent investigation

into Shaw's British contacts revealed that a number of them had intelligence connections;

moreover, there are indications that Shaw might have worked for the OSS, the World War II

precursor of the CIA, and participated in the transfer of Nazi prisoners and war criminals to the

West (57; 9:214-216).

81

* Posner says there is no evidence that Shaw knew David Ferrie. Several witnesses told Garrison

that Shaw and Ferrie knew each other. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tadin testified that

Ferrie introduced Shaw to them and told them Shaw was a friend of his (9:204-205). Also,

during his trial, Shaw admitted under cross-examination that he knew Layton Martens and James

Lewallen, both of whom were friends of Ferrie's--in fact, Martens was one of Ferrie's roommates

(57:31).

* Posner asserts that Shaw never used the alias Clay Bertrand. However, Posner does not explain

why Shaw accepted mail addressed to a Clem Bertrand (9:196). Also ignored by Posner is the

fact that a hostess at the VIP Room at the New Orleans Airport testified she had seen Shaw sign

the guest register as "Clay Bertrand" (9:198; 19:282-283). Garrison's staff obtained the VIP

Room's guest register and found the signature of a "Clay Bertrand." A handwriting expert from

Boston, Mrs. Elizabeth McCarthy, was then asked to evaluate the guest-register signature in

relation to Shaw's handwriting. She told the court, "It is my opinion that it is highly probable that

Clay Shaw signed the signature" (19:282-283; 9:198). Shaw's defense team produced their own

handwriting expert, who disputed Mrs. McCarthy's conclusion. However, that expert made it

clear he was biased against Garrison's investigation.

Shaw himself took the stand and denied using the alias Clay Bertrand; he also said he didn't

know David Ferrie. Even the trial judge, Judge Edward Haggerty, later admitted he didn't believe

Shaw. In a filmed interview broadcast in New Orleans in 1992, Haggerty said, "Shaw lied

through his teeth," and added that Shaw did "a con job on the jury" (9:369 n 81).

Garrison said his investigators found three bartenders who reported that Shaw had been in their

bars and had used the name Clay Bertrand. The bartenders, said Garrison, stated it was common

knowledge in the seedy French Quarter in New Orleans that Clay Betrand was Clay Shaw.

However, not one of the bartenders wanted to get involved and therefore would not "authorize

the use of his name or even sign a statement to be kept confidential" (19:98).

Garrison did have one other witness to Shaw's use of the name Clay Betrand, a young man

named William Morris. Morris said he met Shaw at the Masquerade Bar in the French Quarter.

He reported that he was introduced to Shaw by a man named Gene Davis, and that Davis

introduced Shaw as "Clay Bertrand." Morris became a friend of Shaw's, explained Garrison,

. . . not only visiting Shaw's apartment, but encountering him at one private party and,

on occasion, again at the Masquerade Bar. Morris said that his tall friend was always

referred to as Betrand. (19:99)

* This brings us to the subject of the name Clay Bertrand. Why was Shaw's alleged use of this

alias so hotly contested by the defense? Why is it still so strongly denied by Shaw's defenders?

Because New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews told the FBI that shortly after the assassination a

"Clay Bertrand" called him and asked him to defend Oswald. Later, under considerable pressure,

Andrews claimed he had just imagined the whole thing. But then he repeated his story to

Garrison and to one of Garrison's assistants, only to reverse himself again in subsequent

interviews and during Shaw's trial. Posner, of course, accepts Andrews' repudiation of his initial

FBI testimony. What Posner doesn't do is explain the fact that Andrews' original story was

corroborated by three different people, two of whom worked in Andrews' office (9:129-130, 369-

370 n 82).

82

* Posner repeats charges against Garrison that were either proven false or never substantiated.

For instance, Posner recites the erroneous attacks presented in NBC's 1967 anti-Garrison "White

Paper" documentary. The program's producer was a vehement Garrison critic named Walter

Sheridan. Some of the people interviewed for the documentary included Dean Andrews, two

convicted burglars, and James Phelan, another Garrison opponent who had already attacked the

district attorney in a national magazine. These men presented a long list of charges against

Garrison, from bribery to witness intimidation. However, when Garrison called these same

individuals to testify in a real proceeding, under oath, so they could repeat their claims to a grand

jury, Andrews was indicted for perjury; the two burglars took the Fifth Amendment against self-

incrimination, were cited for contempt, and had time added to their sentences; Phelan refused to

appear; and Sheridan left New Orleans.

* In all seriousness, Posner suggests that Garrison's staff planted the typed suicide note that was

found in Ferrie's apartment. (Actually, two typed suicide notes were found, though Posner

mentions only one.) Posner bases this suggestion on a suspicion voiced by none other than

Gordon Novel, a CIA contact whom Garrison sought to extradite. During the Watergate scandal,

Novel, an electronics whiz, approached the White House and offered to help erase Richard

Nixon's self-incriminating tapes (9:247; 5:508). Posner paints Novel as a victim of Garrison's

alleged persecution and repeats a number of Novel's charges against him. And, again, this is the

same Posner who scoffs at any suggestion that anyone in the Dallas Police Department planted

or altered evident against Oswald.

David Ferrie

* Posner says Ferrie's death was purely natural. He points out that the coroner ruled that Ferrie

died of an aneurism (a broken blood vessel) in the brain, and that forensic pathologists confirmed

this in 1992. But determining that someone died of a brain aneurism does not automatically

prove that the individual died solely of natural causes. In any case, most conspiracy theorists do

not believe Ferrie committed suicide either, but at the same time they doubt he died a purely

natural death.

83

Ferrie was discovered lying naked on his sofa with a sheet pulled over his head. Two typed

suicide notes were found in his apartment. There were several empty medicine bottles on the

table next to Ferrie's body. One of the drugs found in the apartment was Ploroid, a drug designed

to greatly increase a person's metabolism. Garrison learned that with Ferrie's hypertension

Ploroid could have caused him to die from a brain aneurism without leaving a trace (9:152;

19:163-167). What would the hyperactive Ferrie have been doing with a drug like Ploroid

anyway?

Garrison suspected, and some assassination researchers have long believed, that someone forced

Ferrie to swallow medicine from the bottles found on the nearby table, perhaps including the

Ploroid. Recently disclosed photos from Ferrie's autopsy lend credence to this belief. The photos,

made public in 1992, show bruises on the inside of Ferrie's mouth and gums, which suggest his

mouth was forced shut, "perhaps to make him swallow something against his will" (9:153).

The day before he died, Ferrie purchased 100 thyroid tablets. However, when his body was

discovered, they were nowhere to be found in his apartment. Researcher Frank Minyard

theorizes that the killers may have mixed the pills into a solution and then forced it down Ferrie's

throat with a tube. In this regard, it is interesting to note that one of the contusions visible in the

autopsy photos of Ferrie's mouth is on the inside of the lower lip "where the tube may have

struck during a struggle" (9:360 n 17).

To fully comprehend the unfair and distorted nature of Posner's attack on Jim Garrison, I would

invite the reader to compare Posner's chapter on him with James DiEugenio's book Destiny

Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case. DiEugenio certainly takes Garrison to task for his

mistakes, but he also shows that Garrison was on the right track. DiEugenio makes extensive use

of the Shaw trial transcripts and offers new insights into the case from recent interviews with

important witnesses and former members of Garrison's staff. Published in 1992, Destiny

Betrayed is fully documented, with upwards of 1,000 notes and an extensive bibliography.

An even more thorough defense of Garrison, based on newly released documents, is William

Davy's book Let Justice Be Done: New Light On The Jim Garrison Investigation (Jordan

Publishing, 1999).

Henry Hurt, Carl Oglesby, and Jim Marrs have also written worthwhile analyses of Garrison's

investigation (71:261-307; 7:271-292; 5:494-515).

84

Chapter 15

Oswald and David Ferrie

Posner knows it is crucial for his case that he prove that Oswald was not associated with David

Ferrie, "since Ferrie had extensive anti-Castro Cuban contacts and also did some work for an

attorney for Carlos Marcello. . . ." (6:142). Another reason Posner must deny Ferrie and Oswald

knew each is that this was a key claim made by Jim Garrison. And, after all, one would hardly

expect the supposedly left-wing Oswald to be associating with the likes of David Ferrie. Not

only was Ferrie reportedly a CIA contact, but he was heavily involved in CIA-backed anti-Castro

operations and had close ties to right-wing Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello. And Ferrie made no

secret of his passionate hatred of Kennedy. On one occasion, Ferrie was heard to remark that

Kennedy "ought to be shot" (28:174).

So a Ferrie-Oswald relationship poses serious problems for Posner. Posner probably wouldn't

mind linking Oswald to someone who expressed violent sentiments against JFK (even though

Oswald, by all accounts, thought highly of the President), but he doesn't dare connect Oswald to

Ferrie, for if Oswald was the Castro-loving ultra-leftist that Posner says he was, why on earth

would he have been associating with a rabid right-winger who had ties to the Mafia and the CIA?

Oswald and Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol

85

Therefore, Posner asserts that there is "no credible evidence" that Oswald knew David Ferrie

(6:148). Then what was Oswald doing with Ferrie's library card on the day of the assassination

(28:213-217)? Why did Ferrie ask Oswald's former neighbors in New Orleans about Oswald's

library card? Why did he visit Oswald's Dallas landlady to inquire about Oswald's library card?

Posner does not address these issues.

Posner denies that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol

(CAP) in 1955. He claims that CAP records show that Ferrie's 1955 CAP membership renewal

request was rejected (6:143). But Ferrie formed his own CAP unit, and it was this unit to which

Oswald belonged. Most of the CAP records for Ferrie's squadron were stolen in late 1960.

However, HSCA investigators "established that Ferrie's service with the Air Patrol fitted with

that of Oswald" (14:301-302). The Select Committee "also identified no fewer than six witnesses

whose statements tended to confirm that Oswald had been present at Patrol meetings attended by

Ferrie" (14:302; cf. 12:375-376). One witness told Committee investigators,

Oswald and Ferrie were in the unit together. I'm not saying that they may have been there

together. I'm saying it's a certainty. (14:302)

In addition, a former CAP cadet told the FBI that after the assassination Ferrie visited him to see

if any old squadron photos pictured him and Oswald together (14:301).

Posner dismisses the testimony of the witnesses in Clinton and Jackson, Louisiana, who said they

saw Oswald and Ferrie together in the summer of 1963 (6:141-148). These highly credible

witnesses included a state representative, a deputy sheriff, and a town registrar of voters. Posner's

reasons for rejecting their testimony are strained and unconvincing. He even suggests the

witnesses never actually saw Oswald. Jim Garrison and his staff found the Clinton and Jackson

witnesses to be credible (19:122-126). Years later, the House Select Committee interviewed

these witnesses in executive session and concluded they were honest, credible, and significant.

The HSCA Report says the following on the matter:

While reports of some Oswald contacts with anti-Castro Cubans were known at the time

of the 1964 investigation, allegations of additional Cuba-related associations surfaced in

subsequent years. As an example, Oswald reportedly appeared in August-September

1963 in Clinton, La., where a voting rights demonstration was in progress. The reports of

Oswald in Clinton were not, as far as the committee could determine, available to the

Warren Commission, although one witness said he notified the FBI when he recognized

Oswald from news photographs right after the assassination. In fact, the Clinton

sightings did not publicly surface until 1967, when they were introduced as evidence in

the assassination investigation being conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim

Garrison. In that investigation, one suspect, David W. Ferrie, a staunch anti-Castro

partisan, died within days of having been named by Garrison; the other, Clay L. Shaw,

was acquitted in 1969. Aware that Garrison had been fairly criticized for questionable

tactics, the committee proceeded cautiously, making sure to determine on its own the

credibility of information coming from his probe. The committee found that the Clinton

witnesses were credible and significant. They each were interviewed or deposed, or

appeared before the committee in executive session. While there were points that could

be raised to call into question their credibility, it was the judgment of the committee that

they were telling the truth as they knew it.

86

There were six Clinton witnesses, among them a State representative, a deputy sheriff

and a registrar of voters. By synthesizing the testimony of all of them, since they each

contributed to the overall account, the committee was able to piece together the following

sequence of events.

Clinton, La. about 130 miles from New Orleans, is the county seat of East Feliciana

Parish. In the late summer of 1963 it was targeted by the Congress of Racial Equality for

a voting rights campaign. Oswald first showed up in nearby Jackson, La., seeking

employment at East Louisiana State Hospital, a mental institution. Apparently on advice

that his job would depend on his becoming a registered voter, Oswald went to Clinton for

that purpose (although the committee could find no record that he was successful).

In addition to the physical descriptions they gave that matched that of Oswald, other

observations of the witnesses tended to substantiate their belief that he was, in fact, the

man they saw. For example, he referred to himself as "Oswald," and he produced his

Marine Corps discharge papers as identification. Some of the witnesses said that Oswald

was accompanied by two older men whom they identified as Ferrie and Shaw. (HSCA

Report, pp. 142-143, emphasis added)

One of Ferrie's former roommates, Raymond Broshears, told author Dick Russell in 1975, in a

recorded interview, that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other quite well. Among other things,

Broshears said, "David told me Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill the President. He was very

adamant about it, and I believed him. All the things he told me about Oswald, I doubt he could

have shot a rabbit standing fifty feet away" (11:576).

In 1993 HSCA records were released that included a flight plan dated April 8, 1963 (HSCA RG

233). According to the flight plan, a pilot named Ferrie was listed as flying three passengers,

named Hidell, Lambert, and Diaz, from New Orleans to Garland, Texas. "Hidell," of course,

was an alias used by Oswald. There is evidence that Clay Shaw used the alias "Lambert," in

addition to "Clay Bertrand." An affidavit accompanying the HSCA RG 233 document reports

that a man named Edward J. Grinus stated in 1967 that one of Clay Shaw's aliases was Lambert.

What of the Ferrie-Oswald relationship? Jim Garrison believed, and many researchers agree, that

Ferrie was involved in the New Orleans phase of the operation to frame Oswald as a pro-Castro,

far-left activist.

87

Chapter 16

Oswald, Guy Banister, and 544 Camp Street

Posner says Oswald had no connection to Guy Banister, and, therefore, had no reason to visit

Banister's office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans (6:137-142). This is another crucial point of

contention, for Banister was a former FBI man with significant intelligence connections, and his

544 Camp Street office was a meeting place for anti-Castro militants, CIA and FBI agents, and

organized crime figures (5:147-149, 235-237; 12:188-191; 19:27- 31). Also, the Oswald-

Banister connection was first developed by Jim Garrison.

Banister associate Jack Martin said he saw Oswald in Banister's office in the summer of 1963.

Martin added that on at least one occasion Oswald went there with David Ferrie. Posner

dismisses Banister's statements because he was a heavy drinker and because he allegedly

recanted his original story when interviewed by the FBI, supposedly saying he had not seen

Oswald in Banister's office (6:139). Additionally, Posner argues that the HSCA likewise rejected

Martin's testimony. However, Martin was certainly in a position to witness the visits he claimed

to have seen, and it was Martin who tipped off Jim Garrison's office to the fact that David Ferrie

had made a suspicious trip to Texas on the night of the assassination. Let's begin our analysis of

Martin's account by considering some of what the HSCA said about Martin and the Ferrie-

Oswald-Banister link. We'll see that Posner hasn't really told the whole story:

The Clinton witnesses were not the only ones who linked Oswald to Ferrie. On

November 23, the day after the assassination, Jack S. Martin, a part-time private detective

and police informant, told the office of the New Orleans District Attorney that a former

Eastern Airlines pilot named David Ferrie might have aided Oswald in the assassination.

Martin had known Ferrie for over 2 years, beginning when he and Ferrie had performed

some investigative work on a case involving an illegitimate religious order in Louisville,

Ky. Martin advised Assistant New Orleans District Attorney Herman Kohlman that he

suspected Ferrie might have known Oswald for some time and that Ferrie might have

once been Oswald's superior officer in a New Orleans unit of the Civil Air Patrol. Martin

made further allegations to the FBI on November 25. He indicated he thought he once

saw a photograph of Oswald and other CAP members when he visited Ferrie's home and

that Ferrie might have assisted Oswald in purchasing a foreign firearm. Martin also

informed the FBI that Ferrie had a history of arrests and that Ferrie was an amateur

hypnotist, possibly capable of hypnotizing Oswald.

The committee reviewed Ferrie's background. He had been fired by Eastern Airlines, and

in litigation over the dismissal, which continued through August 1963, he was counseled

by a New Orleans attorney named G. Wray Gill. Ferrie later stated that in March 1960,

he and Gill made an agreement whereby Gill would represent Ferrie in his dismissal

dispute in return for Ferrie's work as an investigator on other cases. One of these cases

involved deportation proceedings against Carlos Marcello, the head of the organized

crime network in Louisiana and a client of Gill. Ferrie also said he had entered into a

88

similar agreement with Guy Banister, a former FBI agent (Special Agent-in-Charge in

Chicago) who had opened a private detective agency in New Orleans.

544 Camp Street.--Banister's firm occupied an office in 1963 in the Newman Building at

531 Lafayette Street. Another entrance to the building was at 544 Camp Street, the

address Oswald had stamped on his Fair Play for Cuba Committee handouts. During the

summer of 1963, Ferrie frequented 544 Camp Street regularly as a result of his working

relationship with Banister.

Another occupant of the Newman Building, was the Cuban Revolutionary Council,

whose chief New Orleans delegate until 1962 was Sergio Arcacha Smith. He was

replaced by Luis Rabel who, in turn, was succeeded by Frank Bartes. The committee

interviewed or deposed all three CRC New Orleans delegates. Arcacha said he never

encountered Oswald and that he left New Orleans when he was relieved of his CRC

position in early 1962. Rabel said he held the post from January to October 1962, but

that he likewise never knew or saw Oswald and that the only time he went to the

Newman Building was to remove some office materials that Arcacha had left there.

Bartes said the only time he was in contact with Oswald was in their courtroom

confrontation, that he ran the CRC chapter from an office in his home and that he never

visited an office at either 544 Camp Street or 531 Lafayette Street.

The committee, on the other hand, developed information that, in 1961, Banister, Ferrie,

and Arcacha were working together in the anti-Castro cause. Banister, a fervent anti-

Communist, was helping to establish Friends of Democratic Cuba as an adjunct to the

New Orleans CRC chapter run by Arcacha in an office in the Newman Building.

Banister was also conducting background investigations of CRC members for Arcacha.

Ferrie, also strongly anti-Communist and anti-Castro, was associated with Arcacha (and

probably Banister) in anti-Castro activism.

On November 22, 1963, Ferrie had been in a Federal courtroom in New Orleans in

connection with legal proceedings against Carlos Marcello. That night he drove, with

two young friends, to Houston, Texas, then to Galveston on Saturday, November 23, and

back to New Orleans on Sunday. Before reaching New Orleans, he learned from a

telephone conversation with G. Wray Gill that Martin had implicated him in the,

assassination. Gill also told Ferrie about the rumors that he and Oswald had served

together in the CAP and that Oswald supposedly had Ferrie's library card in his

possession when he was arrested in Dallas. When he got to his residence, Ferrie did not

go in, but sent in his place one of his companions on the trip, Alvin Beauboeuf.

Beauboeuf and Ferrie's roommate, Layton Martens, were detained by officers from the

district attorney's office. Ferrie drove to Hammond, La, and spent the night with a friend.

On Monday, November 25, Ferrie turned himself in to the district attorney's office where

he was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the assassination. In subsequent

interviews with New Orleans authorities, the FBI and the Secret Service, Ferrie denied

ever having known Oswald or having ever been involved in the assassination. He stated

that in the days preceding, November 22, he had been working intensively for Gill on the

Marcello case. Ferrie said he was in New Orleans on the morning of November 22, at

which time Marcello was acquitted in Federal court of citizenship falsification. He stated

89

that he took the weekend trip to Texas for relaxation. Ferrie acknowledged knowing Jack

Martin, stating that Martin resented him for forcibly removing him from Gill's office

earlier that year.

The FBI and Secret Service investigation into the possibility that Ferrie and Oswald head

been associated ended a few days later. A Secret Service report concluded that the

information provided by Jack Martin that Ferrie had been associated with Oswald and

had trained him to fire, a rifle was "without foundation." The Secret Service report went

on to state that on November 26, 1963, the FBI had informed the Secret Service that

Martin had admitted that his information was a "figment of his imagination." The

investigation of Ferrie was subsequently closed for lack of evidence against him.

It appeared to the committee that the FBI overstated Martin's recantation in its

information to the secret service. Martin had cautioned the FBI that he had no evidence

to support his suspicions but that he believed they merited investigation. (HSCA Report,

pp. 143-145, emphasis added)

When Martin first informed on Ferrie, he requested anonymity, but somehow his cover was

blown after FBI agent Regis Kennedy interviewed him a short time later. This was the same

Regis Kennedy who told the HSCA that from 1959 to 1963 Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello was

a legitimate businessman who had no links to organized crime (12:293).

Martin's testimony was corroborated on some key points by Banister's former secretary,

Delphine Roberts. In 1978 Roberts told two separate interviewers, a reporter from the Dallas

Morning News and then British journalist and author Anthony Summers, that Oswald had

worked for Banister as an undercover agent in the summer of 1963 (5:148). She went much

further in her interview with Summers. She told Summers that intelligence agents and law

enforcement officers frequented Banister's office and that she learned from Banister that Oswald

made more than one trip to Mexico City (14:294-296). In addition, Roberts said that when she

spotted Oswald handing out his literature and asked Banister about it, he replied, "Don't worry. . .

. He's with us. He's with the office" (14:295). According to Posner, Roberts, who is an avowed

ultra-conservative, now says her statements to Summers were false and that she only made them

for money (6:139- 141). However, there are reasons to question Mrs. Roberts' retraction:

* She told the Dallas Morning News, on her own and without any promise of payment, that

Oswald had worked for Banister in the summer of 1963, and she told her story to Summers

before he said anything about money (41:20). Moreover, in 1982 she told former Rockefeller

Foundation fellow Henry Hurt that Summers' published account of his interview with her was

accurate (71:292).

* Her claim that Banister told her that Oswald had visited Mexico City more than once rings

true, for there is now evidence that suggests an earlier Oswald trip to the Mexican capital (e.g.,

11:370).

* Her statements about an Oswald-Banister connection were supported by another former

Banister associate, Ivan Nitschke, who reported in 1978 that Banister became "interested in

Oswald" in the summer of 1963 (11:396; 14:296).

90

* Her claim that Banister told her not to worry about Oswald's pro-Castro pamphleteering

received some support from one of Banister's former informants, Allen Campbell. Among other

things, Campbell told Garrison staffers that when somebody in Banister's office informed

Banister of Oswald's pro-Castro demonstration in front of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart,

he merely laughed, much to Allen's surprise (14:293). Another former Banister informant, Daniel

Campbell (Allen Campbell's brother), said he saw Oswald use a phone in one of Banister's Camp

Street offices (14:293). "In separate ways," says Hurt, the Campbell brothers "both recalled

Oswald's association with Banister" (71:292).

That Oswald was connected to Banister's office would seem to be proven by the fact that the

address 544 Camp Street was stamped on some of the pro-Castro pamphlets he distributed in

New Orleans in August 1963. Not according to Posner. "There are," says Posner, "several

nonsinister explanations" (6:141). Posner seems to favor the idea that Oswald put the address on

the leaflets to embarrass Banister, the extreme right wing, and the city's anti-Castro militants

(6:142). But this theory ignores the other evidence of an Oswald-Banister connection, and it fails

to account for the reports that copies of one of Oswald's pro- Castro leaflets were found in

Banister's files after he died (12:190). In addition, the Oswald leaflets recovered in New Orleans

were not the only ones that were found. Twenty copies of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets

were discovered among his possessions in Dallas, and ten of them were stamped with the 544

Camp Street address (14:288).

Oswald's pamphleteering becomes even more significant in light of recent information about one

of the pamphlets he was distributing. In the third week of August 1963, Oswald was handing out

a pro-Castro pamphlet entitled The Crime Against Cuba. The booklet was written in June 1961

by noted peace activist Corliss Lamont. By December of that year, the pamphlet was already in

its fourth printing. Interestingly enough, the copy that Oswald was handing out was not the latest

edition, but the first edition, which sold out when he was in the Soviet Union (9:219). So how did

Oswald obtain that edition? The answer may lie in a recently discovered photocopy of a June

1961 invoice which shows an order for forty-five copies of the first edition. The order was

placed by the CIA. A copy of the invoice can be seen on page 219 of James DiEugenio's book

Destiny Betrayed. In the "Furnish Supplies or Services To" and "Seller's Invoice Sent To"

blocks, appears the following entry:

Central Intelligence Agency

Mailroom Library

Washington 25, D.C.

In the "Ordered By" block appear the words "Chief, Acquisitions Branch." Did Oswald obtain

his copies of the sold-out edition indirectly from the CIA?

Additional evidence of an Oswald-Banister connection is the evidence linking Oswald to David

Ferrie. But Posner doesn't deal with this link because he denies that Oswald and Ferrie knew

each other. The HSCA discussed some of this evidence in its report:

The Warren Commission had attempted to reconstruct a daily chronology of Oswald's

activities in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, and the committee used it, as well

as information arising from critics and the Garrison investigation, to select events and

contacts that merited closer analysis. Among these were Oswald's confrontation with

Carlos Bringuier and with Frank Bartes, his reported activities in Clinton, La., and his

91

ties, if any, to Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha Smith and others who

frequented the office building at 544 Camp Street. The committee deposed Carlos

Bringuier and interviewed or deposed several of his associates. It concluded that there

had been no relationship between Oswald and Bringuier and the DRE with the exception

of the confrontation over Oswald's distribution of pro-Castro literature. The committee

was not able to determine why Oswald approached the anti-Castro Cubans, but it tended

to concur with Bringuier and others in their belief that Oswald was seeking to infiltrate

their ranks and obtain information about their activities.

As noted, the committee believed the Clinton witnesses to be telling the truth as they

knew it. It was, therefore, inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton, La., in late

August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not

Clay Shaw. The committee was puzzled by Oswald's apparent association with Ferrie, a

person whose anti-Castro sentiments were so distant from those of Oswald, the Fair Play

for Cuba Committee campaigner. But the relationship with Ferrie may have been

significant for more than its anti-Castro aspect, in light of Ferrie's connection with G.

Wray Gill and Carlos Marcello.

The committee also found that there was at least a possibility that Oswald and Guy

Banister were acquainted. The following facts were considered:

The 544 Camp Street address stamped on Oswald's FPCC handouts was that of

the building where Banister had his office;

Ross Banister told the committee that his brother had seen Oswald handing out

FPCC literature during the summer of 1963; and

Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, told the committee she saw Oswald in

Banister's office on several occasions, the first being when he was interviewed for

a job during the summer of 1963.

The committee learned that Banister left extensive files when he died in 1964. Later that

year, they were purchased by the Louisiana State Police from Banister's widow.

According to Joseph Cambre of the State police, Oswald's name was not the subject of

any file, but it was included in a file for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Cambre said

the FPCC file contained newspaper clippings and a transcript, of a radio program on

which Oswald had appeared. The committee was not able to review Banister's files,

since they had been destroyed pursuant to an order of the superintendent of Louisiana

State Police that all files not part of the public record or pertinent to ongoing criminal

investigations be burned.

Additional evidence that Oswald may have been associated or acquainted with Ferrie and

Banister was provided by the testimony of Adrian Alba, proprietor of the Crescent City

Garage which was next door to the Reily Coffee Co. where Oswald had worked for a

couple of months in 1963. (The garage and the coffee company were both located less

than a block from 544 Camp Street.) Although Alba's testimony on some points was

questionable, he undoubtedly did know Oswald who frequently visited his garage, and

the committee found no reason to question his statement that he had often seen Oswald in

Mancuso's Restaurant on the first floor of 544 Camp. Ferrie and Banister also were

frequent customers at Mancuso's. (HSCA Report, pp. 145-146)

92

Summers concludes, "The new information now available suggests Banister drew Oswald into an

American intelligence scheme, perhaps aimed at compromising the Fair Play for Cuba

Committee" (14:290). Other researchers believe Banister's principal purpose in working with

Oswald was to "sheepdip" him (i.e., to establish a reputation for him) as a pro-Castro activist as

part of an operation to make him the scapegoat for the assassination.

93

Chapter 17

No Oswald Impersonations?

Posner argues there were no Oswald impersonations whatsoever (6:174-196, 211 n, 213-214).

However, not only does Posner offer weak reasons for rejecting the impersonation accounts, but

he does not even deal with all of them. For example, Posner says nothing about the incident in

which a phony Oswald trespassed onto private property, engaged in target practice, and then left

behind a 6.5 mm shell (5:545).

Posner also ignores the account of Leonard Hutchinson. After the assassination, Hutchinson,

who owned a grocery store in Irving, Texas, said he had been asked to cash a two-party check in

the amount of $189 for a "Harvey Oswald" on November 8. A nearby barber said he saw a man

resembling Oswald enter Hutchinson's store that day (15:258-259). But the real Oswald was

elsewhere on November 8 (15:259). Hutchinson said he saw the man in his store several other

times, and that on one occasion the man was accompanied by a young woman who conversed

with the phony Oswald in a foreign language (5:541). Hutchinson recognized the couple from

photographs of Lee and Marina Oswald that were broadcast over TV after the assassination. It is

doubtful the real Lee and Marina Oswald were ever in Hutchinson's store. Incidentally, this is not

the only reported case of someone impersonating Marina either (5:544).

Other Oswald impersonations ignored by Posner include the following:

* On October 11, 1963, when the real Oswald was in Dallas, someone in New Orleans filed a

change-of-address card in Oswald's name to forward his mail to a house in Dallas. The card is

signed in Oswald's name but the signature is not in his handwriting (14:375).

* Two weeks before the assassination, a phony Oswald asked about a job as a parking attendant

at the Southland Hotel in downtown Dallas. When the parking lot manager wrote the applicant's

name down as "Lee Harvey Osborn," the man corrected it to "Oswald." The real Oswald,

observes Summers, "did not usually spell out his full name but called himself simply 'Lee

Oswald'" (14:378). The imposter then asked a strange question that would later have sinister

significance: He wanted to know how high the hotel was and whether it provided a good view of

Dallas (14:378).

* On November 1, 1963, a Cuban man entered a gift shop in Dade County, Florida, and told an

employee there that he had a friend named Lee who could speak Russian and German. The man

added that his friend Lee lived in Texas or Mexico and "was also a sharpshooter" (11:538).

* On July 26, 1963, when the real Oswald was in New Orleans, someone visited the Atomic

Energy Museum in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and signed the register "Lee H. Oswald, USSR,

Dallas Road, Dallas, Texas" (11:361). The imposter's intention, of course, was to make it seem

as though Oswald thought of himself as a Soviet citizen.

Now let us examine the impersonation accounts that Posner rejects. Posner dismisses the story of

Albert Bogard, the car salesman who said a man named "Oswald" test drove a car shortly before

94

the assassination. Bogard testified to the Warren Commission that a man who introduced himself

as "Lee Oswald" expressed an interest in buying a car and even went for a test drive during

which he drove 60 to 70 miles an hour on the Stemmons Freeway. The real Oswald did not drive.

According to Bogard, when they returned to the dealership, "Oswald" said he didn't have enough

money for a down payment but that he'd be coming into a lot of money very soon. Another

salesman at the dealership, Eugene Wilson, said the phony Oswald remarked that he could get a

better deal by going back to Russia "where they treat workers like men" (2:132).

Posner says none of Bogard's fellow workers supported his story (6:211 n). This is not true.

Bogard's account was supported by two other salesmen, Wilson and Frank Pizzo (5:542; 14:377).

Posner notes that the dealership's manager denied Bogard's story and later fired him for telling it.

Posner prefers to believe the manager rather than Bogard and the other two car salesmen. Even

after he was fired, Bogard did not deny his account. Furthermore, Bogard submitted to an FBI lie

detector test. The FBI grudgingly acknowledged that the polygraph results "were those normally

expected of a person telling the truth" (15:260).

Although he claims that no one at the dealership supported Bogard's story, Posner does admit

that one salesman (Wilson) remembered a five-foot-tall Oswald. Actually, both Rizzo and

Wilson said the imposter was only about five feet tall (2:190). Posner cites only half of this

corroborating testimony, and he rejects this impersonation because the Oswald imposter was

several inches shorter than the real Oswald.

Posner dismisses the accounts of a phony Oswald firing at two rifle ranges in Dallas and Irving

in early November (6:213-214). For the most part, Posner nit-picks at minor inconsistencies,

seeing great significance in the fact that the witnesses disagreed about the exact model and color

of the car the man drove and the kind of rifle and scope he used. Dr. Homer Wood and his son,

Sterling Wood, remembered the man and were shocked when they saw photos of Oswald on TV

after the assassination. So closely did the imposter resemble the alleged assassin that both Dr.

Wood and his son are still convinced the man they saw was Lee Harvey Oswald (5:545).

However, the real Oswald never visited the two rifle ranges.

Posner notes that one of the witnesses, Malcolm Price, said the last time he saw "Oswald" at the

Dallas range was during a turkey shoot on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, which was after

Oswald had been arrested. But what if the man Price saw was an imposter? What would have

prevented him from returning to the range after the assassination? There is also the possibility

that Price was simply mistaken about the date and merged the phony Oswald's last appearance

with the turkey shoot.

Posner strongly questions the credibility of Silvia Odio, who reported a very specific and

disturbing Oswald impersonation involving anti-Castro Cubans (6:175-180). Posner paints her as

an emotionally unstable woman who either imagined her story or made it up to get attention.

Posner's attack, however, is both slanted and incomplete. The available evidence supports Mrs.

Odio's story. A senior Warren Commission staffer wrote, "Mrs. Odio has checked out

thoroughly," and called her "the most significant witness linking Oswald to the anti-Castro

Cubans" (14:389-390). The House Select Committee examined Mrs. Odio's story and also

concluded it was credible (11:480). Similarly, British scholar Matthew Smith studied the relevant

evidence and came away convinced that Mrs. Odio was reliable (15:257-259).

95

Posner seeks to exploit the fact that Mrs. Odio did not tell her story to the authorities right away.

Yet, as Posner surely ought to know, Mrs. Odio was afraid to go to the authorities. In fact, she

did not discuss her experience with official investigators until the FBI approached her after a

series of private conversations about it came to the attention of an FBI agent. Only after the FBI

contacted her did she discuss her story with government representatives.

Incredibly, as part of his attack on Mrs. Odio, Posner quotes Carlos Bringuier. This is the same

Carlos Bringuier who, in 1963, was a CIA contact in New Orleans, a fanatical right-wing Cuban

exile, and the propaganda secretary for the CIA-sponsored Cuban Revolutionary Council

(11:389-390). (Posner describes Bringuier merely as an "anti-Castro leader.") It was Bringuier

who picked that suspicious "fight" with Oswald in New Orleans. Bringuier's original anti-Castro

headquarters was located in Guy Banister's building on 544 Camp Street. Oddly enough, this

address appeared on one of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflets. Many assassination researchers

suspect Bringuier and Banister of having participated in the framing of Oswald as the patsy for

the assassination.

Since so much has already been written about Mrs. Odio's testimony, I will not respond to all of

Posner's criticisms of it. However, I would invite the reader to compare Posner's case against

Mrs. Odio's story with the defenses of it written by Anthony Summers, Jim Marrs, Dick Russell,

and Gaeton Fonzi (14:383-393; 5:150-152; 11:478-483; 61:108-116, 405-409). I will, however,

quote from former HSCA chief counsel's statement to the Select Committee regarding Mrs.

Odio's story:

Silvia Odio testified to the Warren Commission that a man she identified as Lee Harvey

Oswald, in the company of two Latin men, visited her apartment in Dallas in late

September 1963. The two Latin men identified them as members of JURE.

It should be noted that Silvia Odio was not unknown in the Cuban community of Dallas.

She had attended JURE meetings, and in the summer of 1963, a large photograph of her

sisters, Annie and Setira, had appeared on the front page of the Dallas Morning News

along with a "human interest" story about the Odio family. Silvia's name was mentioned.

Mrs. Odio testified before the Warren Commission in September 1964. She said that one

of the men identified himself as "Leopoldo" and she assumed from his accent that he was

Cuban. A second man, possibly named Angelo, was also Spanish speaking but, she said,

he "looked" Mexican. The third, a white American male, was introduced to her as "Leon

Oswald".

Later, Annie Odio, who was at her sister's apartment that evening, would corroborate

Silvia's story to the FBI. She said she opened the door for the visitors.

Silvia Odio, who said she declined to help the men because she didn't trust their

credentials, said that Leopoldo called her 1 or 2 days later. In this telephone

conversation, he said, he mentioned his American friend, and said that "Leon" had

remarked that the Cubans should have killed Kennedy after the failure of the bay of Pigs

invasion.

When Mrs. Odio learned of Kennedy's assassination, she had one of her blackouts. She

regained consciousness in a hospital room where her sister Annie soon visited her.

96

Earlier, watching Oswald on television, Annie had independently recognized Oswald as

someone she had seen before. When she mentioned it to her older sister, Silvia reminded

her of the visit of the three men to her apartment.

Emotionally shaken the women decided not to mention the incident to anyone. They did,

however, tell their sister Serita, and Serita mentioned it to Lucille Connell. On December

12, 1963, the FBI interviewed Silvia Odio. She admitted the visit and positively

identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the "Leon" who had come to her apartment with the two

Latin-looking men. A week later, the FBI interviewed Dr. Einspruch who said that,

although Silvia had some emotional problems, she was a thoroughly credible person.

Silvia Odio's story ran contrary to other evidence which the Warren Commission had

compiled. It had documentation that Oswald had traveled to Mexico City by bus and had

registered at a hotel there on the morning of September 27.

The Warren Commission ordered an investigation, to be conducted, principally by the

FBI, of Mrs. Odio's allegation. It represented a glaring inconsistency in the movements

of Oswald, as the Commission was prepared to report them.

In the summer of 1964, the Warren Commission pressed the FBI to dig more deeply into

the Odio allegation. On July 24, Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a letter to FBI Director

J. Edgar Hoover, stated, " the commission already possesses firm evidence that Lee

Harvey Oswald was on a bus traveling from Houston, Tex. to Mexico City, Mexico, on

virtually the entire day of September 26.

This so-called "firm" evidence was based on an analysis of Oswald's travel during the

time period of September 24-27 by Assistant Counsel David Slawson. J. Wesley

Liebeler, the Assistant Counsel who had interviewed Mr. Odio, disagreed with this

analysis and sent a memo to Rankin, who again wrote to Hoover and said,

"It is a matter of some importance to the Commission that Mrs. Odio's allegations either

be proved or disproved."

Rankin requested that the FBI attempt to learn the identities of the three visitors, by

contacting members of anti-Castro groups active in the Dallas area, as well as leaders of

the JURE organization. He asked the FBI to check the possibility that Oswald had spent

the night of September 24 in a hotel in New Orleans, after vacating his apartment.

Portions of this investigation, which were inconclusive in supporting the Warren

Commission's contention that Odio was mistaken, were not sent to Rankin until

November 9, at which time the final report had been completed. Back on September 19,

Liebeler was extorting Howard Willens, another Warren Commission attorney, to "tone

down" the write-up of the Odio incident. Liebeler contended in that memo: "there are

problems. Odio may well be right. the commission will look bad if it turns out that she

is."

The FBI did attempt to alleviate the "problems." In a report dated September 26, it

produced the story of Loran Eugene Hall, who claimed he had been in Dallas in

September 1963, accompanied by two men fitting Odio's description, and that it was they

who had visited Silvia Odio. Oswald, Hall said, was not one of the men. Within a week

97

of Hall's statement, the other two men Hall had named, Lawrence Howard and William

Seymour, had been interviewed. They denied ever having met Silvia Odio. Then, later,

Hall himself retracted his statement.

despite the fact that the commission could not prove Oswald took a bus to Mexico City,

and despite the fact that Loran Hall's story was an admitted fabrication, the Warren

Report was published, with this explanation of the Odio incident:

"While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the

report wet to press, the commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at

Mrs. Odio's apartment September 1963."

The critics the Warren commission have been quick to pounce on this conclusion. In her

book, Accessories After The Fact, Silvia Meagher wrote:

"The commission's failure to get to the bottom of his affair, with its inescapable

implications, is inexcusable. If the Commission could leave such business unfinished, we

are entitled to ask whether its members were ever determined to uncover the truth.

Indeed, the Commission did not even give an honest account of such facts as were

established. Its own Exhibits expose the "evidence" presented in the Report as a tissue of

evasion and deception which discredits more than it justifies the conclusion that Oswald

could not have visited Mrs. Odio". . . .

Interviews and depositions have been conducted with the principals: Silvia Odio, Annie

Odio, Amador Odio, Lucille Connell Light and Dr. Burton Einspruch. The staff also

arranged a conference telephone call between Dr. Einspruch in Dallas and Silvia Odio in

Miami, during which they recalled the period when Mrs. Odio was under the doctor's

care and related to him the visit of the three men. Mrs. Odio and Dr. Einspruch

concurred that the revelation of this event came shortly after its occurrence and prior to

the president's assassination.

Loran Hall testified before this committee in executive session on October 5, 1977, and

Howard and Seymour were interviewed by the investigative staff.

From a review of FBI files, the committee secured a list of persons who belonged to the

Dallas Chapter of JURE, and the committee is continuing its attempts to locate and

interview these individuals. Additionally, staff investigators interviewed the leader of

JURE, Manolo Ray, not residing in Puerto Rico.

Furthermore, the committee secured photographs of scores of pro-Castro and anti-Castro

activists in 1963 who might fit the descriptions of the two Latinos who Mrs. Odio says

visited her. The committee also utilized the services of various Government agencies to

run a computerized check on all individuals who used the "war" names of Leopoldo and

Angelo, or names basically similar. An extensive search produced the names and

photographs of three men who might possibly have been in Dallas in September of 1963.

These photographs were shown to Mrs. Odio, but she was unable to identify them as the

men she had seen.

The committee has determined, as did members of the Warren Commission staff, that

Silvia Odio's story still is credible. Over the period of the past 15 years, only minor

98

details have changed, and one important one remains consistent--Silvia and Annie Odio

are adamant that "Leon" was Lee Harvey Oswald. (4 HSCA 492-493, emphasis added)

Posner says all of the reported contacts with Oswald in Mexico City were with the real Lee

Harvey Oswald (6:170-173, 181-196). This is not a credible position in light of the evidence.

There are gaping holes in Posner's reconstruction of Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City.

Here are a few of the irregularities about the visit that Posner does not mention at all:

* Oswald's alleged bus tickets were found only a few days before the Warren Report was to be

published. The tickets were supposedly found in some Spanish-language magazines that Oswald

had allegedly brought back from Mexico City. As the story goes, Marina Oswald reportedly took

these magazines with her to the hotel where the government detained her after the assassination.

There, at the last minute, Marina found the tickets in one of the magazines. No one has yet

explained why Marina would have taken Spanish magazines with her when she did not even

speak the language. Nor has anyone explained why it took so long to "find" the tickets. FBI had

agents had already carefully searched the motel rooms where Marina and her children were being

kept. The agents said they had examined every scrap of paper in the rooms and found nothing of

interest (43:66). The rooms were searched again by a different team of agents. They didn't find

the tickets either. It was only after the Warren Commission seemed to get suspicious about the

lack of hard evidence of Oswald's Mexico City trip that the tickets miraculously turned up.

* Every name in the September 27 register of the hotel where Oswald allegedly stayed is in the

same handwriting except Oswald's (9:264). The Warren Commission tried to explain this by

claiming that on the first night a guest would write his or her own name but that on succeeding

nights the hotel clerk wrote them in. "Yet," observes James DiEugenio, "eight other guests

checked in on September 27, and, on the register for September 28, Oswald's name is again in a

unique handwriting. To make it more curious, the handwriting is not the same as that of the

signature [from] the previous day" (9:264).

* Posner, following the Warren Commission, says Oswald returned to Dallas by bus on October

3 (6:196). But the Mexican border records for October 3 do not show Oswald heading for Dallas

by bus, but for New Orleans by car (9:264).

* Oswald allegedly traveled on the Flecha Roja bus line. This bus line normally kept a passenger

manifest for each of its runs. The original was sent to Mexico City and a duplicate copy was

retained at Nuevo Laredo. However, four months after the assassination, when the FBI went to

Mexico City to examine the original passenger list, they were told that Mexican government

investigators had taken the list and had not returned it (9:264). These unnamed "investigators,"

the FBI was told, had also taken the duplicate. Neither the original nor the duplicate was ever

located.

For years lone-gunman theorists have avoided dealing with two troubling facts concerning the

impersonation issue: One, the CIA told the Warren Commission it had a tape of Oswald calling

the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, but FBI agents listened to the tape and

concluded the voice on it was not Oswald's. Two, the CIA claimed it had pictures which showed

Oswald outside the Soviet Embassy, but when the pictures subsequently came to light it was

clear the man in them bore no resemblance to Oswald. Posner tackles these difficulties head-on.

In essence, he says they were the results of innocent mistakes on the part of the CIA (6:185-188).

The CIA, says Posner, accidentally identified the wrong photos and inadvertently gave the FBI

99

the wrong tape. In addition, Posner, quoting an anonymous CIA officer, suggests the CIA might

have routinely destroyed its recording of Oswald's alleged call to the Soviet Embassy.

Let's consider the scenario Posner would have us accept: The President of the United States had

been assassinated. Shortly thereafter, the CIA was asked to assist the Warren Commission in its

investigation. The CIA then claimed it had photographic and audio evidence that Oswald, the

alleged assassin, phoned and visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies. A short while later, the

Agency said that while at the Soviet Embassy Oswald spoke with a KGB expert in sabotage and

assassination. However, the CIA, in the most important investigation of the century, somehow

had the wrong photos and the wrong tape. To make matters worse, the Agency might have sent

the wrong tape because it had mistakenly erased the real one. This is what Posner would have us

believe.

It should be pointed out that the CIA never actually showed the pictures to the Warren

Commission--they surfaced years later and are clearly not of Oswald. On January 24, 1964, the

CIA told the Warren Commission that Oswald had met with Valery Kostikov at the Soviet

Embassy. The Agency said Kostikov was a KGB agent involved in assassination and sabotage.

The Commission was so frightened by this information that it decided to simply take the CIA's

word about Oswald's Mexico City activities. FBI agents examined the pictures and listened to the

tape and knew they were not of Oswald, but the Bureau did not inform the Commission of this

fact.

New information bearing on this issue comes from files recently released by the Assassination

Records Review Board. Among the released files is the transcript of an 11/23/63 telephone

conversation between J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson. During this conversation, the

following exchange occurred:

JOHNSON. Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet

Embassy in Mexico in September?

HOOVER. No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the

tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's

name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his

appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet

Embassy. (80:353-354)

Posner claims that two employees at the Cuban Embassy, Silvia Duran and Alfredo Mirabel

Diaz, positively identified Oswald as the man they had seen (6:188-191). Diaz, however,

admitted he only saw the man briefly (14:349). And Silvia Duran said in 1978 that she was no

longer certain that Oswald was the person who visited the embassy (14:350-351; 5:193-195).

Also, Duran's initial identification of the visitor as Oswald was made under extreme duress

(5:193-195; 43:58-60). Furthermore, the embassy consul at that time, Eusebio Azcue, told the

HSCA that the troublesome visitor was blond and gaunt and about thirty-five years old (14:346-

351). Duran, like Azcue, recalled that the visitor had blond hair.

Posner points out that Azcue also told the Select Committee he would assume he had been

imagining things if it turned out that the signatures on the visa application were verified as

Oswald's (6:188 n). But did Azcue really believe this, or was he simply trying to avoid a

confrontation with the Committee over the issue? Earlier in his testimony Azcue insisted that the

100

man he saw "in no way resembled" Oswald. Azcue also noted that film of the real Oswald

showed a young man with a youthful face. This, said Azcue, was "in radical contrast to the

deeply lined face" of the man who came to obtain a visa. When Committee investigators showed

Azcue photographs of Oswald, Azcue replied, "My belief is that this gentleman was not, is not,

the person or the individual who went to the consulate."

What about the Oswald photos and the signatures on the visa application? Consul Azcue pointed

out that the clerk could have allowed the visitor to take the visa application out of the embassy,

thus providing an opportunity to obtain the real Oswald's signature. Or, the signatures could have

been expertly faked. After the assassination, researchers found a photocopy of Oswald's Social

Security card on which someone appears to have been practicing how to sign Oswald's signature

(11:392). As for the Oswald pictures on the application, intensive research after the assassination

revealed that they were not made at any of the local photo shops (14:349). If the imposter was

allowed to take the application out of the embassy, he could have simply attached Oswald's

pictures to it.

Posner argues that the visitor must have been Oswald or else the clerk would have noticed that

the photos did not match the applicant. But Consul Azcue said the clerk might not have checked

the pictures against the individual who was applying, explaining that "occupied as she was, she

most probably proceeded to place the photograph on the application without this check"

(14:349). Fonzi raises the possibility that the pictures and the signed application were planted by

the CIA agents who worked at the embassy (61:293-294).

It seems obvious that the CIA was trying to conceal the fact that at least some of the alleged

Oswald visits and calls to the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City involved an Oswald

imposter. Some scholars believe that the real Oswald did visit the Soviet and Cuban compounds

but that an imposter called the Soviet Embassy. The “Oswald” who called the Soviet Embassy

spoke “broken” and “terrible” Russian, according to the translator’s notes on the transcript of the

phone call. This could not have been Oswald because Oswald was fluent in Russian. Russians

who knew Oswald said he spoke Russian fluently. Oswald’s Russian was so good that when his

future wife Marina first met him, she was surprised to learn he was an American.

Former Army Intelligence officer John Newman has observed that the now-declassified Lopez

Report on Oswald's Mexico City activities contains persuasive evidence that an Oswald imposter

called the Soviet Embassy from the Cuban Embassy on September 28, 1963 (80:352-419).

Newman presents compelling evidence that the "Oswald" who called the Soviet Embassy from

the Cuban Embassy on the afternoon of September 28 was an imposter (80:362-369, 405-413).

When the fake Oswald called the Soviet Embassy, there was a woman standing beside him, and

this woman spoke during the conversation. She was later identified as none other than Silvia

Duran, though it was never clear how this identification was made. Newman argues that the

woman was an imposter, noting that Duran herself emphatically denied calling the Soviet

Embassy on that date (80:362-369, 405, 413).

Garrison had this to say about Oswald's purported activities in Mexico City:

Early in the official inquiry [the Warren Commission inquiry], the CIA informed the

Warren Commission of Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City before the

assassination. Uncharacteristically, the Commission asked for more evidence. Perhaps the

101

Commission members, aware that the Agency had 24-hour photographic surveillance of

the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, were hoping for a good picture to shore

up their sparsely documented account of Oswald's trip to Mexico.

Initially, the Agency ignored the Commission's request. But after more pressure, the CIA

finally handed over a murky snapshot of a portly, greying gentleman almost old enough

to be Oswald's father. This, the Agency claimed, was Lee Oswald at the Cuban Embassy.

The Agency also produced a statement from Silvia Duran, a Mexican who worked at the

Cuban Embassy, alleging that Oswald had appeared there. However, the circumstances

under which the statement was obtained were tainted, to say the least. On the day after

the assassination, the CIA ordered Mexican authorities to arrest Duran and keep her in

isolation. The Agency cable said: "With full regard for Mexican interests, request you

ensure that her arrest is kept absolutely secret, that no information from her is published

or leaked, that all such info is cabled to us. . . ." Duran was not released until she

identified Lee Oswald as the visitor to the Cuban Embassy. After her release, the CIA

ordered her jailed again. These circumstances were not known to the Commission.

Moreover, in 1978 Duran told author Anthony Summers that the man who came to the

embassy was blond and about her own height (five feet three)--hardly Oswald.

The Commission did not question the Cuban Consul, Eusebio Azcue, even though he had

three angry confrontations with "Oswald." But the House Select Committee on

Assassinations did. When Azcue was shown photographs of Lee Oswald, he stated that

the young man who visited the embassy was blond and was not the man in the

photographs. Nor, said Azcue, was he the man he saw Jack Ruby shoot on television only

two months after his face-to-face confrontation with "Oswald."

The allegation that Oswald had been phoning and showing up at the Soviet Embassy did

not hold up too well either. There were no photos, and when the Commission asked to

hear tape recordings of Oswald's calls, the Agency claimed in one case that surveillance

was suspended and in another that equipment was not working. However, the tapes

survived long enough for FBI agents who were present during the infamous 12-hour post-

assassination questioning of Oswald to hear them. These agents, according to an FBI

memo dated November 23, 1963, and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,

were "of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual [the one on the Soviet Embassy

tapes] was not Lee Harvey Oswald." (19:73-74, emphasis added)

The Oswald imposter issue becomes even more troubling in light of the fact that questions about

Oswald's identity surfaced well before the assassination. In June 1960, FBI director J. Edgar

Hoover asked the State Department for any current information it might receive on Oswald

"since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate" (5:539). In March

1961, the Passport Office informed the State Department, ". . . it has been stated that there is an

imposter using Oswald's identification data and that no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold

of his valid passport. . . ." (5:539).

102

Chapter 18

Suspicious Deaths

Posner, in a downright bizarre appendix entitled "The Non-Mysterious 'Mystery Deaths,'" denies

there has been any sort of organized effort to eliminate witnesses (6:483-499). Posner's list of

"non-mysterious deaths" is noticeably incomplete, and some of the deaths he lists as suicides or

accidents were clearly neither. Moreover, Posner does not mention the fact that both of the two

major official investigations into the assassination were accompanied by an outbreak of witness

deaths. Even in Posner's incomplete list of 48 "unnatural deaths" as of 1977, there are 14

murders. What are the odds that 14 out of 48 witnesses to a crime would be murdered in the

succeeding 14 years?

Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel for the HSCA, agrees that the number and

circumstances of the deaths of some of the witnesses suggests they were silenced as part of a

conspiracy. In his recent book on the assassination, Cornwell says,

The number, circumstances and timing of such deaths . . . did suggest the possibility that

witnesses had been silenced, and thus, the possibility of conspiracy. (83:97)

Some of these deaths have indeed been suspicious or unusual. Potentially key witness Eladio del

Valle was brutally murdered in Miami soon after an investigator from Jim Garrison's office

arrived to interview him. Mafia man Johnny Rosselli, who knew a lot about the CIA-Mafia

assassination plots against Fidel Castro, was murdered just before he was supposed to testify to

the HSCA. CIA agent Gary Underhill claimed to have important information about the

assassination, but he was discovered with a bullet in his head in May 1964. George

DeMohrenschildt, who knew Oswald in Dallas and also had links to the CIA, committed suicide

hours before he was to be interviewed by an HSCA investigator. Clyde Johnson, a former

candidate for governor in Louisiana, told the New Orleans DA's office that he had seen Oswald

with Jack Ruby and Clay Shaw in New Orleans in August 1963.

Six years later, the New Orleans DA, Jim Garrison, took Shaw to trial on the charge of having

been involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Clyde Johnson, however, never testified

at Shaw's trial, because he was severely beaten seven months before the trial started, and then he

was killed in a shotgun attack five months later. David Ferrie, who by all accounts was a key

witness, supposedly committed suicide just a few days after it was revealed in the press that

Ferrie was a target of Garrison's investigation. Some believe Ferrie was forcefully fed a fatal

dosage of Proloid. The deputy coroner of New Orleans, Frank Minyard, noted a contusion on the

inside of Ferrie's lower lip. Minyard concluded the contusion had been caused by "something

traumatically inserted into his mouth" (84:67). Ferrie's alleged suicide occurred on the same day

Eladio del Valle's brutalized body was found in Miami.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was on duty in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. After

hearing shots, he ran toward the grassy knoll and interviewed witnesses to the shooting. About

103

15 minutes later he saw a man running from the back door of the TSBD down the slope to Elm

Street and saw the man get into a Nash station wagon. He said the man looked like Oswald.

Craig was also with Seymour Weitzman when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the

TSBD. He insisted the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Craig became unpopular with senior police officers in Dallas when he testified before the Warren

Commission. He insisted he had seen a man who looked like Oswald get into a station wagon 15

minutes after the shooting. Craig, unlike Seymour Weitzman, refused to change his mind about

the kind of rifle that he saw discovered in the TSBD.

In 1967 Roger D. Craig went to New Orleans to testify for the prosecution at the Clay Shaw trial.

Later that year he was shot at, and nearly killed, while walking to a car park. In 1973 a car forced

Craig's car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the accident. In 1974 he

surviving another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The following year he was seriously wounded

when his car engine exploded. Craig was found dead from gunshot wounds on May 15, 1975.

The local coroner ruled his death a suicide, but Penn Jones, who knew Craig well, did not believe

he had killed himself.

For those who would like to learn more about the disturbing pattern of witness elimination in the

JFK assassination, I would refer them to the research of Jim Marrs, David Scheim, and Matthew

Smith, although other authors have also written useful analyses on the subject (5:555-66; 25:39-

49; 15:169-178).

[NOTE: Authors Richard Belzer and David Wayne have written a book on the numerous

suspicious deaths among JFK assassination witnesses titled Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation

into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination (Skyhorse Publishing, 2016).]

104

Chapter 19

Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante

Many researchers believe Carlos Marcello was involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

Marcello was furious at the Kennedys because of their anti-Mafia campaign. Prior to the

assassination, witnesses heard Marcello make threatening remarks against President Kennedy. In

September 1962, an FBI informant heard Marcello remark that if he had Kennedy killed, he

would frame an individual not connected to the Marcello organization so the police would

immediately apprehend this person for the murder (28:121-123). Marcello added that he had

already thought of a way to frame a "nut" to take the blame (28:122). Furthermore, in the weeks

leading up to the President's murder, Marcello met often with David Ferrie. During this same

period, Marcello lieutenants were in contact with Jack Ruby. It is worth noting that Marcello had

supported the CIA's anti-Castro efforts.

The witness who reported on Marcello's statement about framing a "nut" was FBI informant

Edward Becker. Posner expresses the view that Marcello would not have been so frank with

someone he didn't know well (6:460). Becker himself has answered this objection:

First of all, I wasn't a stranger. I was with Roppolo, who was practically a member of the

family. The Marcellos and the Roppolos had grown up together. . . . So being with

Roppolo meant I was OK. Also, Carlos soon learned we knew a lot of the same people in

Vegas. He even checked me out with them. And I'd already met with Carlos a couple of

times before the meeting at Churchill Farms. . . . Everybody who's dealt with Carlos

knows how boastful he gets when he's had a few [drinks]. (28:233)

Posner points that Carl Roppolo "denied Marcello ever said anything like that, and was not even

sure there was a meeting with Becker" (6:460). What Posner doesn't tell us is that Roppolo was a

close personal friend of Marcello's and had connections to his crime organization. Roppolo's

wife worked for Marcello.

Posner says the Select Committee concluded that Becker had a "questionable reputation for

honesty and may not be a credible source of information" (6:460). In point of fact, the Select

Committee, observes John Davis, "interviewed Edward Becker and found him to be a credible

witness" (28:236). The former chief counsel for the Committee, G. Robert Blakey, confirms this

fact:

In our effort to evaluate the story, we found that Becker, a former public relations man

for the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, had been involved in shady transactions with Max

Field, a criminal associate of Joseph Sica, a prominent mob figure in Los Angeles. Such

an association, we believed, helped explain Becker's presence at a meeting with Marcello.

Next, we talked to Julian Blodgett, a former FBI agent and chief investigator in the Los

Angeles district attorney's office who, as a private investigator in 1962, had employed

Becker on occasion. Blodgett conceded that Becker was "a controversial guy," but he

believed his account of the meeting with Marcello. We were able to obtain substantial

105

corroboration for Becker's presence in the New Orleans area in September 1962, and we

learned that he had said he went to Churchill Farms with a longtime friend, Carlos

Roppolo of Shreveport, to discuss a promotional scheme with Marcello. . . . Finally, [Ed]

Reid [an expert on organized crime] told us he believed Becker's account, since he had

obtained trustworthy information from him on other occasions. (12:280; cf. 25:76-77).

Becker said Marcello issued one of the threats against Kennedy in Sicilian. Posner quotes a

former New Orleans police intelligence chief who knew Marcello to the effect that Marcello

speaks little if any Sicilian (6:461). But surely Posner has read enough about Marcello to know

that his parents were Sicilian. Moreover, the threat Marcello directed against Kennedy ("Take the

stone out of my shoe") is a common Sicilian curse which expresses a desire to see harm come to

the person being cursed, and Marcello certainly had had enough exposure to Sicilian culture to

have picked up the saying.

Marcello's threat against Kennedy was similar to the one reportedly voiced by fellow mobster

Santos Trafficante. In September 1962, the same month Becker heard Marcello threaten JFK,

Trafficante was said to have told Jose Aleman, ". . . this man Kennedy is in trouble and he will

get what is coming to him." Aleman, a prominent member of the Cuban exile community in

Miami, disagreed and said Kennedy would probably get reelected. To this Trafficante responded,

"You don't understand me. Kennedy's not going to make it to the election. He's going to be hit"

(5:170). Trafficante, of course, didn't know that Aleman was an FBI informant. Aleman reported

what he had heard to the FBI, but his report was ignored. He repeated his allegation to The

Washington Post in 1976 and to HSCA staffers in March 1977 (12:280). However, when he

appeared in public session in 1978, he began to waffle, saying he had understood Trafficante to

mean that Kennedy was going to be "hit by a lot of votes" in the 1964 election. To all but the

blind, it was obvious that Aleman changed his story because he was frightened. He indicated to

the Select Committee that he feared for his life, and he requested the protection of U.S. marshals

while he was in Washington.

Posner rejects Aleman's story because the FBI said it had no record of Aleman's report and

because Aleman watered down his account in public testimony before the HSCA (6:459-460).

Given the FBI's track record on assassination evidence, it comes as no surprise that the Bureau

failed to find Aleman's report. As for Aleman's public testimony, Posner does not mention that

Aleman feared for his life. Posner is also silent about the fact that Aleman repeated his report to

HSCA staffers in 1977.

Former HSCA investigator Fonzi suggests that Aleman fabricated his story to implicate the Mob

at the behest of the CIA (61:256- 257 n). Fonzi notes that one of Aleman's closest associates was

Watergate burglar Eugenio Martinez, a shadowy anti-Castroite who was still on the CIA's

payroll when he committed the Watergate break-in. Fonzi believes that Aleman was known as an

FBI informant and that therefore Trafficante would not have mentioned a coming hit on Kennedy

in Aleman's presence. On the other hand, Aleman's behavior after testifying before the HSCA

tends to indicate he was telling the truth. His family reported that he continued to fear for his life

after the Select Committee's hearings were over, and that he was convinced that his HSCA

testimony against Trafficante had caused his financial ruin (28:445-447).

106

Chapter 20

The Case of Joseph Milteer

On November 9, 1963, a wealthy, well-connected right-wing extremist named Joseph Milteer

unknowingly told a Miami police informant that the assassination of JFK was already "in the

works" (or "in the working") (5:265; 14:404). Milteer said the best way to kill Kennedy would be

"from an office building with a high-powered rifle" (14:404; 5:265). The informant, William

Somersett, captured Milteer's comments on tape. The tape is played and discussed in the A&E

Network's documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy (originally produced in Great Britain by

Nigel Turner). Milteer also said the authorities would pick up someone within hours after the

shooting, "just to throw the public off."

After the assassination, the Miami police informant, Somersett, had another meeting with

Milteer. According to the Somersett, Milteer boasted, "Everything ran true to form. I guess you

thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle. .

. . I don't do any guessing" (5:265). Milteer said not to worry about the capture of Oswald,

"because he doesn't know anything" (5:265).

Joseph Milteer

Who was Joseph Milteer? Milteer, a man of considerable wealth, belonged to a number of

radical and racist groups. He was a regional director of the fanatical Constitution Party. In

addition, he held membership in the White Citizens' Council of Atlanta and was a leader in the

National States Rights Party, which had close links with the anti-Castro movement (14:405).

107

In a post-assassination conversation with informant Somersett, Milteer described himself as part

of an "international underground" which had used Oswald as a dupe to put the blame on the

Communists (11:551-553, 706-707).

As mentioned, Milteer reportedly called informant Somersett from Dallas on the day of the

assassination. What was Milteer doing in Dallas on November 22, of all days, if he was there?

Was he there to watch the President's death? Amateur photographic analyst Robert Groden has

identified Milteer in photographs from Dealey Plaza. Groden first presented this evidence to the

HSCA, but the Committee was reluctant to accept it and in fact set out to disprove Milteer's

presence in the films. The Committee's film experts claimed that the man in the photos could not

be Milteer because he was too short. "In fact," notes DiEugenio, the Committee's "faulty

mathematical premises, as later disclosed, made everyone seem shorter than they were" (9:231).

In their book High Treason, Groden and Harrison Livingstone present photographic comparisons

of Milteer with the man in the Dealey Plaza pictures (see the eleventh page of the third set of

black-and-white photos therein). (A comparison can also be found in Groden's more recent book

The Killing Of A President.) I agree with those who see a rather striking resemblance between

Milteer and the man pictured in Dealey Plaza. This does not prove Milteer was in Dallas. One

federal document places Milteer in Georgia at the time of the assassination. So the man in the

picture may not be Milteer after all, even though there is admittedly a close resemblance between

him and Milteer.

Posner has precious little to say about the Milteer case. Posner blandly notes that Milteer said

Kennedy "would be killed," and claims that photo analysts for the Select Committee "proved"

Milteer did not appear in any Dealey Plaza pictures (6:498). Posner calls Milteer's November 9

assassination prediction a "boastful claim" and says "there is no link between Milteer and the

events in Dallas" (6:498).

As for the informant Somersett, naturally, Warren Commission defenders have questioned

Somersett's reliability. One federal document describes Somersett as someone who had provided

reliable information in the past, while a couple other documents describe him as unreliable. The

judge who approved the surveillance on Milteer seemed to consider Somersett reliable.

It should be noted that a Secret Service report (CE 762) documents that the Secret Service

received information from an FBI source that reinforced Milteer's taped prediction and that

supported Somersett's account. The report dealt with information that the Secret Service received

from the FBI just seven days before the assassination. According to the report, an unnamed

contact in the Ku Klux Klan said that during his travels around the country his sources had told

him "that a militant group of the National States Rights Party plans to assassinate the President

and other high-level officials" (see also 11:550-551). As mentioned, Milteer was a leader in the

National States Rights Party and was involved with other radical groups. He was certainly in a

position to hear about a plot by radical right-wing militants to kill Kennedy, and the tape of his

November 9 meeting with Somersett records that he was certain a hit on Kennedy was "in the

working."

Contrary to what some lone-gunman theorists claim, Milteer did not categorically say who would

do the shooting. He suggested one man named Brown might do it, but he did not specify would

do it. In Somersett's first debriefing with the Miami Police Department's Intelligence Unit just

four days after the assassination, he said Milteer simply had had the idea that Kennedy would be

108

killed somewhere in the South. I would like to close this discussion on Milteer by quoting at

length from the transcript of the tape of Somersett's 11/26/63 interview with the Miami police's

Intelligence Unit:

And he [Milteer] said to me [Somersett] when he came back in, he said to me, Oswald

hasn't said anything, and he will not say anything. So, I said, " Why do you think that?"

He said, "Well, he will just not say anything, and nobody has any worry", and of course

we waited there until about 10:20, and four gentlemen came to visit with us. One of

them's name was Belton Mims of the Association of S.C. Ku Klux Klan; A.D. Boling,

The Grand Dragon of the Association of the S.C. Klan; Jack D. Hendricks, Box 616

Denmark, S.C., and Official of the Association of the S.C. Ku Klux Klan; Will Ulmer,

Route RFD Box 314- B Orangeburg, S.C. They entered the room and sit down, and

greeted everybody as being glad to meet us there, and we went into a few discussions,

Mr. Milteer did at least to them that, uh, the worries were over to a certain extent, but was

not finished. That the underground had no worry as to being exposed, because this group

that this Oswald belong to which was Pro-Castro had been promptly infiltrated, and of

course, money had been put into right hands, furnished to the right people to do the job

without throwing anything on the patriots. . . .

It was agreed, before we left, that Milteer would set the date, and the place where

everybody would meet, and that they could invite people that were highly trusted, but that

we were not under no circumstances to give the impression to our people that we had

infiltrated this Oswald Pro-Castro organization and had the job done, let it go just like it

is, and we would work right on down the line. . . .

I am satisfied that this man beyond doubt knew that this was going to happen, and from

the impression that I got from him this conspiracy originated in New Orleans, probably

some in Miami, and different parts of the country, probably in California. . . .

Q: Do you think that he knows this Oswald personally, or knows anything about him?

A: Well, I believe that he does, I believe that if he doesn't know Oswald person, he

knows the people in Miami or New Orleans that was doing business with the group

which he belonged to. And that is where the infiltration was made into it, into this man's

group, it was either Miami or New Orleans.

Q: These are two separates groups are they not? They are separated widely in their

beliefs so to speak. How do you think they would be coming together?

A: From the impression he give me, and what he told me, was that Oswald group was

Pro-Castro, and that they were infiltrated, and their leaders, somebody close to them was

given money to infiltrate their group, and pay them to kill Kennedy, and that would

throw, if anybody did get caught, that would throw the entire case into the laps of the

Communist.

Q: Did he make mention of any persons that this Oswald may have contacted, or may

have known?

A: No, he didn't mention Oswald directly being acquainted with anybody. The only

thing that he was down on was that this group had been infiltrated by the Patriot

underground and arranged from there to have the execution carried out, and drop the

responsibility right into the laps of the Communists, their association, or Castro.

Q: Did he give any indication that money passed hands from the Patriot groups to...

A: (BREAKS IN) - Well, yes, he said, "Of course there was a lot of money".

109

Q: Did he mention that there was a lot of money?

A: Yes, there was a lot of money involved, and it came not only from the average

Patriot, but from men who could afford to contribute. And that this has been in progress

for sometime. . . .

Q: Do you know whether this Milteer has ever spent any time in New Orleans?

A: He said that he had been to New Orleans and that he had been to Dallas Texas. This

probably would have been 5-6 months ago, he didn't specify a certain time, but he was in

New Orleans, Dallas, and Gulfport Mississippi, and in Biloxi, Mississippi and in Jackson,

and he spent quite a time in Alabama.

Q. Did he seem surprised about the assassination of President Kennedy?

A. Not a bit. Not a bit in the world, he said, "It is no surprise" he did not know exactly

where it was going to happen, or when it was going to happen, but he knew it had to

come.

Q. But he seemed very happy that it happened?

A. Yes, he was very happy over it, and he shook hands with me, and he said, "Well, I

told you so, it happened like I told you, didn't it?". . . .

Q: Well, in other words, would you say that his conversations was brief on the

assassination?

A: Yes sir, very brief.

Q: Didn't it seem kind of odd, the fact that everybody in the nation was overcome, and

talking particularly about this one subject, just to tell you that it happened, and then quit

talking about it. Did it seem odd to you?

A: Well, it did in a way; it seemed to me the way that he told me that it would not be

necessary to be talking about it anymore as far as the Patriots were concerned, that we

should not give an impression one way or the other that we were sad or that we were glad

about it, just let it drop, because the underground was going to proceed with further

operations, because it would be mostly alleged against the Jews. . . .

Q: Do you have any idea of your own thought, what is your thought, do you think maybe

Milteer could have been in Dallas, Texas in the last two weeks?

A: Yes, he could have been there, I am satisfied that he could have been most anywhere

he wanted; he has two cars ready to move at anytime.

Q: You have seen no evidence that he was there?

A: No. He didn't say that he was, the only thing he said that he had been in Texas.

Q: He didn't say when he had been in Texas?

A. No, he didn't say. He had been in New Orleans, Houston, different places in

Louisiana and in Texas. . . .

Q: In other words, you think somebody knew the temperament of Oswald, and figured

wanted to get Kennedy out of the way, and would particularly do it for money?

A: Yeah.

Q. But we don't know, and you don't have any idea of who might have collected this

money, or who might have given this money to this particular man, the assassin, Oswald,

because somebody would have to give it to him.

A: Well, I don't believe Milteer did it, but it might be a possibility that he knows who

engineered it in Texas and Louisiana. The impression I get from him, I think the thing

was set up to kill Mr. Kennedy in the South, in some southern state. There was no

particular town picked out, it was just the opportunity of the town that would suit best

when the proper time comes. I think that when this man Mr. Kennedy left Miami, it was

110

published in the papers, where he would go, and I think that they just set this man up in

Texas and had him kill him right there. Because Milteer is too much enthused over it, he

discussed it too much before hand and after not to know something about it.

111

Chapter 21

Richard Case Nagell: Valuable Witness or Nut?

For several years, Richard Case Nagell was a military intelligence agent. He also worked for the

CIA at times. He was assigned to penetrate Soviet intelligence. Nagell knew Oswald and at one

point was assigned to follow him. Nagell has considerable knowledge of the plot that killed JFK.

However, Nagell refuses to go public with all he knows until he is granted immunity from

prosecution for his activities as an intelligence agent.

A thorough, well-documented presentation of what Nagell has been willing to disclose so far can

be found in Dick Russell's 1992 book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Russell discusses Nagell's

career in U.S. intelligence and carefully examines what he has said about the assassination.

Russell corroborates much of Nagell's remarkable story through other witnesses and declassified

documents.

Posner paints Nagell as unreliable and mentally unstable. Posner observes that when Nagell

offered his help to Jim Garrison, he was "confined to the psychiatric section of the federal prison

in Springfield, Missouri" (6:445). But Posner says nothing about how Nagell was railroaded into

that situation. Nor does Posner deal with the overwhelming evidence that Nagell was perfectly

sane.

Posner says that Garrison investigator William Martin found Nagell "unreliable," and that Nagell

then "complained that Martin was part of the CIA plot against him" (6:445). Posner is not telling

us the whole story. In Martin's first memorandum about Nagell, he said,

[Nagell] is an extremely articulate and well spoken individual who seems to have full

command of his senses and total recall of his activities and constantly mentions dates,

times, and places that pertain to matters concerning this investigation. (11:423)

Later, however, Martin allegedly began to behave suspiciously. He reportedly let slip to Nagell

that he used to work for the CIA. His subsequent memorandums to Garrison about his visits with

Nagell "contained some damaging and, according to Nagell, blatant disinformation" (11:643-

644). Nagell gave Martin several important documents which Martin was supposed to copy for

Nagell's sister and for researcher Arthur Greenstein. Martin took an unusually long time to do so.

When Nagell asked about the excessive delay, Martin replied that there were "security

considerations involved" (11:644). Shortly after this, Nagell terminated his meetings with

Martin. Posner mentions none of this.

Nor does Posner inform his readers that both Garrison and his chief investigator, Bill Wood,

himself an ex-CIA officer, became convinced that Martin was a CIA infiltrator (11:642-643).

Said Garrison, ". . . people that we sensed did have possibilities of being useful witnesses were

increasingly turned off by him [Martin]." Garrison added that those on his staff who had

experience in the intelligence community made Martin as CIA "right away" (11:643). Bill Wood

subsequently found out that Martin had belonged to one of Guy Banister's right-wing groups in

New Orleans (11:643).

112

At around the same time that Garrison's staffers were becoming increasingly suspicious of

Martin, he left New Orleans. He did not inform anyone in Garrison's office that he was leaving,

and, needless to say, he did not provide a forwarding address. Posner doesn't mention any of this

either.

Posner claims that Nagell "was so unreliable that not even Garrison used him" (6:467). This is

patently false. Garrison himself made it clear that the only reason he didn't call Nagell as a

witness was that Nagell would not disclose which intelligence agency (or agencies) had

employed him (19:212-216). Garrison feared that defense lawyers would use this to discredit

Nagell as a witness. After meeting with Nagell, Garrison said,

During most of my flight home I reflected long and hard on my Central Park meeting

with Richard Case Nagell. I had studied him closely for all of the three hours or so we

were together, and I was satisfied that weaving a fabricated tale was not in this man's

makeup. (19:216)

Posner simply ignores all of the evidence Russell provides which corroborates Nagell's story. For

instance, Russell notes that in 1974 Nagell spoke of a military unit known as Field Operations

Intelligence, whose existence had never before been publicly revealed. Also, Russell found a

witness, a retired El Paso policeman, who confirmed that Nagell had foreknowledge of the

assassination. In addition, Russell cites a 1969 military intelligence "agent report" obtained

through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report states that Nagell had been employed

by the CIA and that he had "conducted an inquiry into the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald" from

July to September 1963, exactly as Nagell claims. Furthermore, an El Paso policeman confirmed

to Russell (and has done so to other researchers as well) that Nagell clearly seemed to have

foreknowledge of the assassination, i.e., that Nagell definitely seemed to know that Kennedy

would soon be killed in Dallas. This is just a sampling of the corroboration Russell provides for

Nagell's story. Posner says nothing about any of this evidence.

113

Chapter 22

The Murder of Officer Tippit

Posner says that eyewitnesses, ballistics, and physical evidence prove that Oswald murdered

Officer J. D. Tippit a little over forty minutes after he allegedly shot President Kennedy (6:273-

280). Posner ignores significant evidence of Oswald's innocence and merely repeats the Warren

Commission's version of the killing. The case against Oswald in Tippit's murder has been

analyzed by other authors, so I will not discuss the matter at length herein. For more information

on the rather tenuous nature of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit affair, I would invite

the reader to compare Posner's claims with the analyses of Marrs, Lane, Summers, and Hurt

(5:350-353; 4:190-208; 14:84-97; 71:139-169). However, I would like to examine some of the

evidence that Posner either ignores or scarcely mentions:

* The witness who should have had the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first

said he could not identify the killer. This might be because, as even some lone-gunman theorists

admit, Benavides told his boss the day after the shooting that he did not get a good look at the

gunman. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a

picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket

as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray

jacket. About a year after Benavides’s Warren Commission testimony, his brother Edward was

shot and killed. Domingo and his father-in-law both believed Edward was shot in mistake for

Domingo, even though all the evidence indicated he was shot accidentally during a bar fight.

Later, Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.

* Two witnesses to the Tippit slaying described the killer in terms that did not resemble Oswald

at all.

* Two other witnesses said Oswald entered the Texas Theater just a few minutes after 1:00 P.M.,

and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested there about an hour later. But Tippit was

killed at no later than 1:12, and probably between 1:06 and 1:10.

* Officer J. M. Poe marked two of the empty shells found at the crime scene with his initials, a

standard chain-of-evidence procedure, but the shells produced by the FBI and the Dallas police

as evidence of Oswald's guilt do not have Poe's markings on them. Officer Poe initially said he

was certain he had marked the shells. Later, testifying before the Warren Commission, Poe did

not sound quite as certain, though even then he said he believed he had marked the shells.

* Posner assumes that Tippit approached his assailant from behind, meaning that the killer was

walking east on Tenth Street. However, the available evidence strongly indicates the killer was

walking west. This is a crucial point because if the killer was in fact walking west, or toward

Tippit, then it could not have been Oswald (unless someone drove Oswald to the scene and then,

for some inexplicable reason, Oswald started walking back toward the direction of his rooming

house). Henry Hurt explains,

114

One of the most glaring discrepancies of all is seen in the accounts of the direction in

which Tippit's killer was walking just before Tippit stopped. William Scoggins, a cab

driver who was an eyewitness, testified that the gunman was walking west toward

Tippit's car prior to the shooting. Another witness [Jim Burt] reported similarly. Reports

from the Dallas police as well as the first reports of the Secret Service reflect the same

impression. Despite the preponderance of evidence that the killer and Tippit's car were

moving toward each other, the Warren Report concluded the killer was walking in the

opposite direction. The commission version held that Tippit's car overtook the pedestrian

killer. (71:149-150, original emphasis)

* The first two reports on the Tippit slaying to go out over the radio said Tippit's killer had used

an automatic pistol, not a revolver. The first report originated with Dallas policeman H. W.

Summers, who said he had an "eyeball witness to the getaway man" and that the man was

"apparently armed with a .32, dark finish, automatic pistol." The second report came from

Sergeant Gerald Hill, who was one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. After

examining a shell found nearby, Hill said the casing indicated the suspect had used an automatic

pistol (17:273, citing CE 1974:78). As anyone familiar with firearms knows, it's very hard to

mistake a revolver shell for an automatic shell. There is an obvious difference between the two. I

quote leading criminalist and forensic expert Larry Ragle:

If they are discarded at the scene, revolver casings [shells] are readily distinguishable

from casings designed for semi and full automatic pistols. The difference is in the base.

Revolver rounds have a wider base, a lip, extending out beyond the diameter of the body

of the shell casing. This lip keeps the rounds from sliding out the front of the cylinder

when their chamber is not aligned with the barrel or frame. The lip on ammunition

designed for semis and autos is the same size as the body of the casing. (78:156-157)

* Helen Markham, Posner's star witness against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, gave such wildly

conflicting and confused testimony that one Warren Commission staffer called her an "utter

screwball." Although by all accounts (including Posner's) Tippit died instantly, Mrs. Markham

said she conversed with him after he was shot. She told attorney Mark Lane that she conversed

with the dead Tippit for twenty minutes. Additionally, Mrs. Markham gave conflicting

descriptions of the killer.

-----A Frantic 43 Minutes-----

One can make a good case that Oswald did not have enough time to go from the TSBD to the

scene of the Tippit slaying. The Warren Commission said he left the Depository at 12:33 P.M.

and killed Tippit 43 minutes later, at 1:15. But even a casual review of Oswald's alleged

movements shows he could not have done what the Commission said he did. Posner disagrees,

saying,

Could Oswald have physically been at the Tippit scene by 1:15, the time of the shooting?

A reconstruction of the time that elapsed since he left the Depository shows it is more

than possible. (6:274 n)

But Posner's TSBD-to-Oak-Cliff scenario relies heavily on the Warren Commission's

questionable version of Oswald's post-assassination movements. For example, Posner accepts the

Warren Commission's claim that Tippit was shot at 1:15 P.M. However, the overwhelming

115

weight of the eyewitness testimony indicates that the shooting occurred no later than 1:12.

Posner departs from the Commission version by saying that Oswald left his rooming house just

before 1:00. Posner does this in order to get Oswald to the Tippit scene by 1:15. Yet, according

to Oswald's landlady, he did not leave the house until 1:03 or 1:04 and then remained in the

vicinity for a short while (14:92; 5:347). The plain fact of the matter is that any reconstruction

which places Oswald at the Tippit scene by 1:12, much less by 1:15, is contrary to the evidence.

Oswald simply could not have made it there in time to shoot Tippit (unless someone drove him

there).

Helen Markham said Tippit was shot at around 1:06. When she saw the shooting, she was en

route to her regular 1:15 bus. Other witnesses agreed that the shooting occurred just a few

minutes after 1:00. T. F. Bowley, who radioed the police dispatcher from Tippit's car, reported

that his watch said 1:10 when he drove up to the crime scene. Bowley contacted the police

dispatcher at 1:16 or 1:17. This was after Domingo Benavides waited in his truck for "a few

minutes" (out of fear the killer would return), got out of his truck, attempted to help Tippit,

climbed into the squad car, and then fumbled with the radio as he tried to figure out how it

worked. It was at this point that Bowley appeared inside the car, took the radio from Benavides,

and contacted the dispatcher.

In all probability, Tippit was shot between 1:06 and 1:10, no later than 1:12. But Oswald did not

leave his boarding house until around 1:03 or 1:04, and his landlady reported that he lingered in

the immediate vicinity of the house for a little bit. An inquiry of residents in the area failed to

produce anyone who had seen a man running at the time in question. Even assuming a good

walking speed of four miles an hour, it would have taken Oswald no less than twelve minutes to

reach the Tippit crime scene. Therefore, Oswald could not have been present to shoot Tippit at

1:15, much less a few minutes earlier.

A research team from the All American Television Company did a reconstruction of Oswald's

movements from the TSBD to the Tippit scene for the 1992 documentary The JFK Conspiracy,

which was hosted by world-famous actor James Earl Jones. The team confirmed that Oswald

could not have arrived to the scene of the crime even by 1:15. I quote from James Earl Jones'

narration:

At 12:33 the Warren Commission said Oswald left the Depository and walked seven

blocks to catch a bus. . . . after traveling a couple of blocks, the bus was caught in an

immense traffic jam. They said he got off the bus. At 12:48, they said Oswald climbed

into a taxi. They gave him six minutes to reach his next stop [his neighborhood in Oak

Cliff]. It took us over eight [minutes], without traffic.

The Commission said Oswald entered his boardinghouse at one o'clock. At 1:03, his

landlady said he [Oswald] left the house and went to the northbound bus stop. Yet, in

order to kill Officer Tippit, he had to travel south. So, the Commission said he must have

changed his mind.

The witnesses all said [almost all of them said] Tippit was killed no later than 1:10, and

that was after the policeman and his killer had a conversation [according to the Warren

Commission's star witness, Helen Markham]. Seven minutes [for Oswald to get from his

house to the murder scene]. Oswald simply didn't have enough time.

116

In every case, the Commission failed the time test, and we had no congested traffic to

deal with. (original emphasis)

Actually, there is some doubt about the cab-ride story. Some scholars question the validity of the

cab driver's account. Dr. Kurtz is one of those scholars. He argues that Deputy Sheriff Roger

Craig's story of seeing Oswald jump into a station wagon about fifteen minutes after the shooting

is far more credible than the cab-ride story. Lone-gunman theorists dismiss Craig's story

because, if true, it can only mean one of two things: either the cab-ride story is false or an

Oswald look-alike was seen leaving the Book Depository fifteen minutes after the assassination.

Dr. Kurtz explains why he is doubtful of the cab-ride account and why he believes Deputy

Sheriff Craig's story is credible:

The Warren Report mentions that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that about

fifteen minutes after the assassination, he saw Oswald run from the rear of the Depository

building, scamper down an incline to Elm Street, and enter a Rambler station wagon

driven by a dark complected man. According to the commission, "Craig may have seen a

person enter a white Rambler station wagon 15 or 20 minutes after the shooting . . . but

the Commission has concluded that this man was not Lee Harvey Oswald, because of the

overwhelming evidence that Oswald was far away from the building by that time."

What was that "overwhelming evidence"? It should be mentioned that even if the

commission's version is accepted, Oswald was not "far away from the building by that

time." According to the commission, at 12:44 Oswald was getting off McWatters's bus

only five blocks east of the Depository building. He then walked for four minutes to the

Greyhound bus station only four blocks away. The "overwhelming evidence" is the

testimony of William Whaley [the cab driver]. Remember that Whaley failed to select

Oswald out of police lineup as his taxicab passenger. He also testified that Oswald was

wearing two jackets, while the commission claimed that he wore none. In his taxi

logbook, Whaley recorded the time of his pickup at the bus station as 12:30, yet the

commission said that the real time was 12:48.

Let us now examine Roger Craig's testimony in order to determine if it is consistent and

accurate and supported by other evidence. Deputy Craig watched the motorcade in front

of the Criminal Courts building on Houston Street. After hearing the shots, he raced to

the grassy knoll area. Photographs of the scene show Craig in the large crowd of people

converging on the knoll after the shooting. Craig then returned to the south side of Elm

Street. As he was standing there with a group of law enforcement officials, he noticed a

man run down the grassy embankment to the right front of the Texas School Book

Depository building. A light green Rambler station wagon, driven by a heavy-set, dark-

complected man, was traveling west on Elm Street. As the running man reached the

curb, the station wagon stopped and the man entered. . . .

There is, in fact, substantial evidence that provides far more corroboration for Craig's

testimony than for the totally unsubstantiated statements of Whaley. Carolyn Walther

was watching the motorcade from Houston Street. She saw a man standing on the fourth

or fifth floor in the southeast corner window of the Depository building. He was holding

a gun. Next to him was a man dressed in a brown sport coat. Shortly after the

assassination, James Worrell saw a man run out of the back of the Depository. The man

117

was five feet eight inches to five feet ten inches tall, average weight, had dark hair, and

was wearing a dark sports jacket. The man was moving south on Houston Street.

Richard Randolph Carr watched the motorcade from Houston and Commerce streets.

Shortly before the shooting, he saw a man wearing a brown sport coat in an upper floor of

the Book Depository building. A couple of minutes after the shooting, Carr saw the same

man walking very fast heading south on Houston Street. After going around the block,

the man entered a grey or green Rambler station wagon. Marvin Robinson was driving

his car west on Elm Street about fifteen minutes after the shooting. He saw a man come

down the grassy incline and enter a Rambler station wagon, which then drove away.

Mrs. James Forrest was standing in a group of people who had gathered on the incline

near the grassy knoll. As she was standing, she saw a man suddenly run from the rear of

the Depository building, down the incline, and then enter a Rambler station wagon. The

man she saw running down and entering the station wagon strongly resembled Lee

Harvey Oswald. "If it wasn't Oswald," Mrs. Forrest has declared, "it was his identical

twin." The testimony of Walther, Worrell, Carr, Robinson, and Forrest all provide strong

substantiation for Roger Craig's story.

Craig's story is also supported by photographic evidence. One photograph shows Deputy

Craig running toward the grassy knoll. Another shows him standing near the grassy

knoll. Another shows him standing on the south side of Elm Street looking toward the

Book Depository building. In the same photograph, a light-colored Rambler station

wagon can be seen heading west on Elm Street. In another photograph, Craig is seen

looking toward Elm Street in the general direction of the station wagon. . . .

Despite the impressive corroboration for Craig's testimony, the Warren Commission

chose to reject it. Instead, it accepted the unsubstantiated and contradictory testimony of

taxi driver William Whaley. There is no corroboration for Whaley's story. Whaley did

tell the commission that when Oswald entered his cab, an elderly lady tried to enter it

from the opposite side. Oswald volunteered to let her have the cab, but the lady refused

because another taxi was waiting just behind Whaley's. There is no indication that the

commission attempted to locate the other cab. Both the driver and the lady could have

supported Whaley's observations. By studying the logbook of the other cab, it would be

possible to attempt to trace the lady. Neither the police nor the commission did so.

Whaley testified that Oswald "had on two jackets." The commission decided there was

none. At the police lineup, Whaley picked out eighteen-year-old David Knapp instead of

twenty-four-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald (Knapp did not even resemble Oswald).

Whaley registered 12:30 p.m. in his logbook as the time when his passenger entered the

cab. This, of course, eliminated Oswald, since Oswald was in the Depository building at

that time. The commission attempted to explain this by noting that Whaley recorded all

trips in fifteen-minute intervals, regardless of how long the actual trip took. Since the

commission decided Oswald entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48, it did not explain why

Whaley entered 12:30 instead of 12:45 in his book. Nor did it explain why other trips

were entered at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10, rather than regular quarter-hour

intervals. In his original log, Whaley entered 500 North Beckley as the spot where he let

Oswald out. The commission decided that Whaley was wrong here, also.

118

It should be obvious to the disinterested observer that the Warren Commission was trying

to fabricate a case against Oswald as a lone assassin and murderer. There is not one iota

of evidence to substantiate Whaley's testimony about the cab ride. Deputy Sheriff Craig's

story is supported by the testimony of five other witnesses as well as five photographs.

(60:130-133, original emphasis)

119

Chapter 23

Jack Ruby and the Killing of Oswald

Incredibly, Posner not only denies that Jack Ruby had Mafia ties, but he repeats the long-

discredited claim that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was merely an act of spontaneous rage (6:350-

403). Ruby's extensive Mafia links and activities have been abundantly documented by several

scholars, including G. Robert Blakey, the former chief counsel for the HSCA. Ruby placed calls

to important mob connections all over the country right after Kennedy's visit to Dallas was

announced, and there was a marked increase in Ruby's suspicious calls in the weeks immediately

preceding the assassination. Just a coincidence? Yes, says Posner. Posner accounts for these calls

by accepting Ruby's alibi that they were made to voice business complaints to the American

Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA). The AGVA alibi is not credible and has been refuted by David

Scheim in his book The Mafia Killed President Kennedy (25:289-300).

Jack Ruby

As for Ruby's killing of Oswald, Posner's principal witness that it was a spontaneous act is none

other than ultra-conservative William Alexander, the very man who, as an assistant district

attorney, helped to successfully prosecute Ruby for premeditated murder in the shooting! Posner

admits that Ruby made a minimum of three visits to the Dallas police station after Oswald was

arrested, and that on at least one of those occasions Ruby had his pistol with him. Yet, Posner

does not see this as evidence of stalking, primarily because Ruby failed to shoot Oswald when he

was escorted past Ruby during one of those visits.

And what about the fact that Ruby somehow showed up in the basement of the Dallas police

station in the middle of the day, in broad daylight, armed with a pistol, just in time to shoot

120

Oswald as he was about to be transferred to a waiting van? A chance encounter, says Posner, just

lucky timing. Among other things, Posner ignores Billy Grammer's testimony. On November 24,

1963, Grammer, as a young lieutenant on the Dallas police force, was working in the

communications room when he received a call from Ruby. Grammer said Ruby warned him that

the police had to change the plans for Oswald's transfer or "we're going to kill Oswald right there

in the basement" (5:417). Ruby did not identify himself by name, but Grammer recognized his

voice. In an interview for the 1988 documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Grammer said

he was absolutely certain Ruby was the caller. This is just part of the evidence that Ruby was

trying to avoid having to carry out his assignment to shoot Oswald. Unfortunately, he did not

succeed, and shortly after calling Grammer he carried out the order to execute Oswald. Even the

ultra-cautious HSCA could not ignore the compelling evidence that Ruby's killing of Oswald

was not spontaneous.

The Select Committee also concluded that Ruby probably entered the basement of the Dallas

police department with assistance. Posner, however, brushing aside all evidence to the contrary,

clings to the Warren Commission's claim that Ruby entered the basement without assistance by

walking down the Main Street ramp (6:395). Posner says Ruby did this while the officer

guarding the ramp, Ray Vaughn, was temporarily distracted when a car drove up the ramp from

the basement. However, Vaughn insisted that neither Ruby nor anyone else went down the ramp

while he was guarding it, and three policemen who had been parked in a squad car on the ramp

said they did not see Ruby enter either (12:345). In addition, an off-duty police officer who was

standing across the street said he was certain Ruby did not use the ramp (12:345).

121

Conclusion

I could document many other errors in Posner's book. For all its sophisticated graphics and

endorsements, Case Closed is one of the worst, most inaccurate books ever published on the

assassination. Suffice it to say that the case of the murder of President John F. Kennedy is

definitely not closed.

We need to realize that the assassination of President Kennedy was in a certain sense a change of

government, from the one that "we the people" had chosen to the one that was desired by those

who wanted to continue to topple Castro, a full-blown war in Vietnam, an end to detente, an end

to Kennedy's monetary reforms, an end to Kennedy's war on the Mafia (which in fact came to a

virtual halt after the assassination), an end to Kennedy's reforms of the military, and an end to his

reforms of the CIA. We have yet to fully recover from the death of President Kennedy.

What is needed now is the appointment of a special prosecutor and/or a new Congressional

inquiry into the case. Many of the witnesses are still alive, and numerous items of evidence have

yet to be properly examined. There is much that we could learn from a new investigation--much

that needs to be learned.

**********************************************************

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The

Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San

Angelo, Texas. He has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts, and of one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Sources

1. Jacob Cohen, "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy," COMMENTARY, June 1992, pp. 32-40.

2. Robert Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH TREASON: THE

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND THE NEW EVIDENCE OF

CONSPIRACY, Berkley Edition, New York: Berkley Books, 1990.

3. Jim Moore, CONSPIRACY OF ONE, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group, 1991.

4. Mark Lane, RUSH TO JUDGMENT, Thunder's Mouth Press Edition, New York: Thunder's

Mouth Press, 1992.

5. Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY, New York: Carroll and

Graf Publishers, 1989.

122

6. Gerald Posner, Case Closed: LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE ASSASSINATION OF

JFK, New York: Random House, 1993.

7. Carl Oglesby, THE JFK ASSASSINATION: THE FACTS AND THE THEORIES, New

York: Signet, 1992. 8. Bonar Menninger, MORTAL ERROR: THE SHOT THAT KILLED JFK,

New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

9. James DiEugenio, DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE,

New York: Sheridan Square Press, Inc., 1992.

10. Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH TREASON 2, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers,

1992.

11. Dick Russell, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, New York: Carroll and Graf

Publishers, 1992.

12. G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, FATAL HOUR: THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT KENNEDY BY ORGANIZED CRIME, Berkley Books Edition, New York:

Berkley Books, 1992. Although Blakey and Billings do posit a conspiracy in the assassination,

they also provide a lot of misinformation, and they support a number of the Warren

Commission's claims.

13. J. Gary Shaw, "Posner's Single Bullet Theory or How to Ignore the Facts When You Really

Try," DATELINE: DALLAS, Special Edition, November 22, 1993, pp. 15-19.

14. Anthony Summers, CONSPIRACY: THE DEFINITIVE BOOK ON THE JFK

ASSASSINATION, Updated and Expanded Edition, New York: Paragon House, 1989.

15. Matthew Smith, JFK: THE SECOND PLOT, Edinburgh, England: Mainstream Publishing

Ltd, 1992.

16. Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield. COUP D' ETAT IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND

THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, Revised Edition, San Francisco, California:

Quick American Archives, 1992.

17. Silvia Meager, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE Warren Commission, THE

AUTHORITIES, AND THE REPORT, New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967; Vintage Press, 1976.

18. David S. Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE, Carroll and Graf Edition, New York: Carroll and Graf

Publishers, 1988.

19. Jim Garrison, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, Warner Books Edition, New York:

Warner Books, Inc., 1988.

20. Roger Craig, WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT, Dallas, Texas: JFK Assassination

Information Center, 1971, reprint.

21. Craig Zirbel, THE TEXAS CONNECTION, New York: Warner Books, 1992.

22. Larry Ray Harris, "November 22, 1963: The OTHER Murder," DATELINE: DALLAS,

Special Edition, November 22, 1993, pp. 31-34.

123

23. Bill Sloan, with Jean Hill, JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS, Gretna, Louisiana:

Pelican Publishing Company, 1992.

24. Tip O'Neill, with William Novak, MAN OF THE HOUSE: THE LIFE AND POLITICAL

MEMOIRS OF SPEAKER TIP O'NEILL, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.

25. David S. Scheim, THE MAFIA KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY, London, England:

Virgin Publishing Ltd, 1992. First published under the title CONTRACT ON AMERICA: THE

MAFIA MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, New York: Shapolsky Publishers,

1988. The retitled 1992 edition is a revised and updated version of the 1988 original.

26. Carl Oglesby, WHO KILLED JFK?, Berkeley, California: Odonian Press, 1982.

27. Christopher Scally, "SO NEAR . . . AND YET SO FAR": THE HOUSE SELECT

COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS' INVESTIGATION INTO THE MURDER OF

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, Dallas, Texas: JFK Assassination Information Center,

April, 1980.

28. John Davis, MAFIA KINGFISH: CARLOS MARCELLO AND THE ASSASSINATION

OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, Signet Edition, New York: Signet, 1989.

29. W. Anthony Marsh, "The Ramsey Report," DATELINE: DALLAS, volume 1, numbers 2

and 3, Summer/Fall 1992, pp. 14-16.

30. Gary J. Aguilar, M.D., Letter to the editor, DATELINE: DALLAS, volume 1, numbers 2 and

3, Summer/Fall 1992. 6.

31. Joseph Forbes, Letter to the editor, COMMENTARY, November 1992, pp. 15, 17.

32. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (i.e., the Warren Report), Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1964. Barnes and Noble Books Edition.

33. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., JFK: CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, New York: Signet, 1992.

34. Dennis L Breo, "JFK's Death: The Plain Truth From the MDs Who Did the Autopsy,"

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Volume 267, May 27, pp. 2794-

2803.

35. Harrison Edward Livingstone, "JAMA Article: A Travesty!," DATELINE: DALLAS,

volume 1, numbers 2 and 3, Summer/Fall 1992, pp. 1, 29-35.

36. Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE,

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.

37. Douglas Valentine, THE PHOENIX PROGRAM, New York: Avon Books, 1990. A

disturbing history of a CIA covert action program in which thousands of Vietnamese civilians

were killed, tortured, and imprisoned, all without even the semblance of due process of law.

38. Brian Freemantle, CIA, New York: Stein and Day, 1983.

124

39. Jonathan Vankin, CONSPIRACIES, COVER-UPS AND CRIMES, New York: Dell

Publishing, 1992.

40. Leslie Cockburn, OUT OF CONTROL, London: Bloomsbury Publishing LTD, 1987.

41. James DiEugenio, "Posner in New Orleans: Gerry in Wonderland," DATELINE: DALLAS,

Special Edition, November 22, 1993, pp. 19-22. An excellent response to many of Posner's

criticisms of Jim Garrison.

42. John M. Newman, JFK AND VIETNAM: DECEPTION, INTRIGUE, AND THE

STRUGGLE FOR POWER, New York: Warner Books, 1992.

43. Mark Lane, PLAUSIBLE DENIAL: WAS THE CIA INVOLVED IN THE

ASSASSINATION OF JFK, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991.

44. Thomas C. Reeves, A QUESTION OF CHARACTER: A LIFE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY,

New York: The Free Press, 1991.

45. Haynes Johnson, THE BAY OF PIGS: THE LEADERS' STORY OF BRIGADE 2506, New

York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1964.

46. Ted C. Sorenson, KENNEDY, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.

47. Mario Lazo, DAGGER IN THE HEART: AMERICAN POLICY FAILURES IN CUBA,

New York: Funk and Wagnells, 1968.

48. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., A THOUSAND DAYS: JOHN F. KENNEDY IN THE WHITE

HOUSE, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965.

49. William Manchester, ONE BRIEF SHINING MOMENT, Boston, Massachusetts: Little,

Brown and Company, 1983.

50. Allan Nevins, editor, THE BURDEN AND THE GLORY: THE HOPES AND PURPOSES

OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S SECOND AND THIRD YEARS IN OFFICE AS REVEALED

IN HIS PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,

1964.

51. Edward J. Feulner, "Reading His Lips: How to Tell if Clinton Really Is a New Democrat,"

POLICY REVIEW, Winter 1993, pp. 4-8.

52. Jack Kemp, AN AMERICAN RENAISSANCE: A STRATEGY FOR THE 1980'S, Falls

Church, Virginia: Conservative Press, Inc., 1979.

53. Alicia Esslinger, "Assassination of One," DATELINE: DALLAS, volume 1, numbers 2 and

3, Summer/Fall 1992, pp. 24-25.

54. Daniel Oliver, "A 'Soak the Rich' Policy Is Just Bad Economics," HUMAN EVENTS, April

10, 1993, p. 11.

55. J. Gary Shaw, "'Case Closed' or Posner's Pompous and Presumptuous Postulations,"

DATELINE: DALLAS, November 22, 1993, pp. 10-14.

125

56. Mark North, ACT OF TREASON: THE ROLE OF J. EDGAR HOOVER IN THE

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991.

57. Anthony Frewin, LATE-BREAKING NEWS ON CLAY SHAW'S UNITED KINGDOM

CONTACTS, Research Transcript, DALLAS, Texas: JFK Assassination Information Center,

1992.

58. Jacob Cohen, Letter to the editor, COMMENTARY, November 1992, pp. 18-21.

59. Josiah Thompson, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1967.

60. Michael Kurtz, CRIME OF THE CENTURY, Knoxville, Tennessee: University of

Tennessee Press, 1982.

61. Gaeton Fonzi, THE LAST INVESTIGATION, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993.

62. W. Anthony Marsh, "Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot from the Grassy Knoll," June

1993. This paper was delivered at the Third Decade conference held on June 18-20, 1993..

63. Harrison Edward Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH: DECEIT AND DECEPTION IN

THE JFK CASE, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1993.

64. Anthony Summers, OFFICIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: THE SECRET LIFE OF J. EDGAR

HOOVER, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1993.

65. Linda Hunt, SECRET AGENDA: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, NAZI

SCIENTISTS, AND PROJECT PAPERCLIP, 1945-1990, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.

66. Wallace Milam, "Blakey's 'Linchpin': Dr. Guinn, Neutron Activation Analysis, and the

Single-Bullet Theory," Unpublished manuscript, 1990, copy in my possession.

67. William Manchester, THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, New York: Harper & Row,

Publishers, 1967.

68. Robert J. Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT: THE COMPLETE

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION, THE CONSPIRACY, AND

THE Cover-Up, New York: Viking Studio Books, 1993.

69. Walt Brown, "November 22, 1963: Origin of Media Apathy," DATELINE: DALLAS, April

12, 1994, p. 19.

70. Herbert S. Parmet, JFK: THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, New York: Penguin

Books, 1984.

71. Henry Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE

ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985.

72. Walt Brown, THE PEOPLE V. LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New York: Carroll and Graf

Publishers, 1992.

73. Gerald Ford, with John R. Stiles, PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN, New York: Simon and

Shuster, 1965.

126

74. Cyril Wecht, CAUSE OF DEATH, New York: Dutton Books, 1993.

75. John Lattimer, "Observations Based on A Review of the Autopsy Photographs, X-Rays, and

Related Materials of the Late President John F. Kennedy," RESIDENT AND STAFF

PHYSICIAN, May 1972, pp. 34-64.

76. Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II: THE FBI-SECRET SERVICE COVER- UP, New

York: Dell Publishing Company, 1967.

77. Harrison Edward Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE

CENTURY, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1995. Must reading, probably the most

important book ever written on the assassination.

78. Larry Ragle, CRIME SCENE, New York: Avon Books, 1995.

79. Craig Roberts, KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, Tulsa, Oklahoma:

Consolidated Press International, 1994.

80. John Newman, OSWALD AND THE CIA, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1995.

81. Stewart Galanor, COVER-UP, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998.

82. George Lardner, "Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board Staff

Member: Contends 2 Different Specimens Were Examined," THE WASHINGTON POST,

November 10, 1998.

83. Gary Cornwell, REAL ANSWERS: THE JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION,

Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998.

84. William Davy, LET JUSTICE BE DONE: NEW LIGHT ON THE JIM GARRISON

INVESTIGATION, Reston: Jordan Publishing, 1999.

85. Tony Szamboti, "A Critical Look at Luis Alvarez’s Jet Effect Explanation for the Head

Movement of John Kennedy When He was Assassinated on November 22, 1963," 2001, at

http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/jeteffectrebut.html.

127

APPENDIX A

TRANSCRIPT OF AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. BRIAN MEE

CONCERNING THE FAMOUS BACKYARD RIFLE PHOTOGRAPHS

------------

Introduction

------------

On Tuesday, 16 August, 1994, I met with Mr. Brian Mee in my home

for the better part of three hours to discuss the famous backyard

rifle photos, which seem to show Oswald wearing a pistol belt

and holding a rifle in one hand and some radical newspapers

in the other hand. There are three backyard photographs

currently in evidence. They are labeled CE 133-A, B, and C.

Each shows the Oswald figure in a different pose. Although the

Dallas police said they found two negatives, one for A and one

for B, only the B negative is known to exist. An important

backyard snapshot was discovered in the late 1970s when the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducting its

investigation. This photo, known as 133-A, DeMohrenschildt, is

much clearer than 133-A and was printed full negative.

Prior to our interview, I supplied Mr. Mee with a 22-page extract

from the file PHOTOS.ZIP, which at the time was available on

CompuServe's JFK Assassination Forum. This file contains the

HSCA testimony of two members of the Committee's photographic

panel, Calvin S. McCamy and Cecil W. Kirk, who testified in

defense of the backyard pictures. I also supplied Mr. Mee with

sections on the photos from two books that dispute their

authenticity.

Our meeting ran about 2 hours and 55 minutes, give or take a

few minutes. I recorded all but about 15 minutes of it on

audio cassettes. I had obtained two 60-minute tapes and one 30-

minute tape for the interview, never thinking that it would go

beyond two and a half hours. Three or four of those non-recorded

minutes resulted from the "Pause" button on the recorder not

being released after the audio tape had been paused while we

viewed a video segment. (At other times, however, the tape was

left running while we watched a video segment.) The remaining

unrecorded minutes occurred toward the end of our meeting, when I

ran out of cassette tape. When this happened, I took careful

notes.

I should make it clear at the outset that we did not examine

copies directly from the National Archives. Of course, we did

not study the original photos and the 133-B negative either.

Just about the first thing Mr. Mee asked me when he came through

the door was if I had access to the originals, and if I had my

own copies from the National Archives. Mr. Mee stated that in

some cases he would be unable to provide a firm judgment due to

the nature of the copies we had available to examine.

I will say, though, that in his video White uses copies of good-

128

quality reproductions of the backyard photos that he obtained

from the National Archives. I used the freeze-frame function on

my VCR and also made several long video segments of the photos

from Jack White's video. We viewed these on my 19-inch color TV,

which has a very high-quality picture. Additionally, I made

available to Mr. Mee an enlarged copy of 133-A from a fairly good

reproduction in Matthew Smith's book JFK: THE SECOND PLOT. Our

other source for copies of the backyard photographs was Robert

Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT. Mr. Mee felt that in

several cases the copies I was able to show him enabled him to

reach firm conclusions. On the other hand, as mentioned above,

he also made it clear that he could not provide a firm opinion on

certain issues due to the nature of these copies and to his not

being able to view the original materials.

For the sake of convenience and organization, I placed subject

headings in the 22-page extract that I provided to Mr. Mee.

All testimony from PHOTOS.ZIP pertaining to these subjects

was included. The headings were as follows: "On Using Frame Edge

Markings and Scratches for Authentication"; "Frame Edge Markings

on 133-A (DeM) and the 133-B Negative"; "Imperial Reflex

Scratches on the Backyard Photos"; "Photogrammetry and the

Backyard Photos"; "Lines in the Chin Area?"; "The Shape of the

Chin"; "Varying Exposure Analysis and Faked Shadows"; "Digital

Image Processing"; "Nose Shadow vs. Body and Rifle Shadows";

"Duplicating the Nose Shadow?"; "Change of Expression?";

"Backyard Measurements and Stereo Pairs"; "Answering Jack White";

"General Comments"; "McCamy on the Possibility of Fakery."

Mr. Mee stated that the opinions he expressed were his own, and

that he was not speaking on behalf of any government agency.

The reader will notice that during the interview I read several

lengthy sections from Kirk and McCamy's testimony. I explained

to Mr. Mee before we went on tape that I would be reading

extensively from the extract in order to provide those who

would read this transcript with the necessary context and

background.

There is one issue about which I would like to further consult

with Mr. Mee, and that is his theory of how the backyard photos

could have been faked. In explaining his theory, he drew

diagrams and referred to them throughout his explanation. This

was the only point in our interview when I wished I had video

taped it as well as audio taped it. The reader might find it

somewhat hard to follow Mr. Mee's explanation without being able

to see the diagrams to which he was referring. I should say,

however, that I think one can still get the general idea of what

Mr. Mee was saying on this subject.

Following my interview with Mr. Mee, I spoke with other

professional photographers and photo lab technicians, as well as

with serious, experienced amateur photographers. They did not

know that the questions they were answering were related to the

Kennedy assassination. I posed my questions in relation to a

hypothetical photo of a doll in someone's yard. When it came to

the issue of water spots and the nearly straight line that

129

runs across Oswald's chin, I simply asked what the chances

were that the edge of a water spot would form a nearly straight

line. Some of the people with whom I consulted included the

following:

* Mr. Konrad Mandl, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a certified member of the British Institute

of Professional Photography.

* Miss Davette Johnson, a professional photographer and photo

lab technician, and a computer graphics technician.

* Mr. Jerry Finzi, professional photographer

* Mr. Mark Loundy, professional photographer.

* Mr. Arthur Kramer, a professional photographer who has taught

photography at the collegiate level. In addition, Mr. Kramer

wrote a column for MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY magazine for 20 years

called "The View from Kramer."

* Mr. Steven Newbould, a photo lab technician at the Harrogate

Photographic Laboratories, Harrogate, England.

All of the professionals and serious amateurs with whom I spoke

corroborated Mr. Mee's views on the issues about which I asked

them.

For example, Mr. Mee expressed considerable skepticism about the

photographic panel's claim that the irregular line across the

chin was actually the edge of a water spot. This line, as it

appears in Jack White's video, is nearly straight, and Mr. Mee

said this was one of the reasons that he doubted the panel's

assertion. Miss Johnson told me that in all her years in

photography she had never seen the edge of a water spot form a

nearly straight line. Mr. Mandl said it would be unusual for the

edge of a water spot to form a nearly straight line. Similarly,

Mr. Kramer stated that such an occurrence would be "unlikely."

Mr. Mee disputed the photographic panel's claim that a vanishing

point analysis could explain the conflicting shadows in the

backyard photos. I did not discuss this subject with Miss

Johnson or Mr. Mandl, but I did question my other photographic

sources on the issue, and their responses were quite revealing.

I asked them if a vanishing point analysis could explain why the

facial and body shadows on my hypothetical doll did not fall in

the same direction. I asked them to assume that the facial

shadows fell straight down, but that the body shadows fell off in

approximately a ten o'clock position (which is what we see in the

backyard snapshots). Every single one of them insisted that the

described shadow variations were not possible without two

different light sources, and none of them expressed the view

that the variant shadows could be explained by a vanishing point

analysis.

Mr. Mee said that the film grain patterns in the backyard photos

could have been matched if the forger knew what he was doing and

130

took care to match the film speed. Mr. Mandl agreed that a

skillful forger could match film grain patterns in a composite

picture. Mr. Newbould said he believed that grain patterns could

be matched in a fake photo, but he added that he wanted more

information before commenting further on my question. Mr. Mandl

and Mr. Newbould were the only two persons that I asked to

comment on this topic.

------------------------

Mr. Mee's Qualifications

------------------------

Mr. Mee is a professional photographer and photo lab technician.

He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has worked as

photographer and photo lab technician for the U.S. Government for

the last ten years. Among other things, Mr. Mee has studied and

had on-the-job training in negative retouching, print

development, shadows, and negative analysis.

In addition, he has had technical courses in color print

development and color negative development at the Winona School

of Photography, which is affiliated with the Professional

Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in

automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the

KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York.

Mr. Mee asked me to make it clear that the views he expressed

were his own, and that he was not speaking on behalf of any

government agency.

-----------------------

Transcript of Interview

-----------------------

[Mr. Mee and MTG watch a segment on the DeMohrenschildt photo

from Jack White's video FAKE: THE FORGED PHOTO THAT FRAMED LEE

HARVEY OSWALD. The segment is about the DeMohrenschildt photo

and how its superior detail and clarity indicate that it was

taken with a different, better camera.]

MTG. All right, the thing about the DeMohrenschildt photo not

being a copy of 133-A because it has much better detail and a

larger background. Does that make sense?

MR. MEE. It wouldn't be a copy of 133-A if it had more detail

because, if anything, the reverse would be true, since you always

lose, you never gain, when you copy something. You lose detail,

definition, and contrast is built up. You start to lose your

gray tones, which hold most of your detail, and it starts to go

into shadow or [tape unclear]. So, it wouldn't be a copy.

The DeMohrenschildt photo would not be a copy of 133-A.

MTG. Could it have been printed off of the negative of 133-A,

even though it has better contrast and everything? I mean, Jack

White seems to think that because the DeMohrenschildt photo

has such better quality, that it must have been made with a

better camera. Is it logical to assume that it was taken with

131

a better camera?

MR. MEE. There are two possibilities that come to mind. That is

one of them--that it was done with a better camera. The other

one is that it was an earlier copy of the negative and that 133-A

is a second- or third-generation copy. To say that the

DeMohrenschildt photo was done with a better quality camera is

possible, and, it is likely, in this situation, the more probable

of the two choices.

MTG. Let me just see how we're sounding so far.

[Audio tape is stopped, rewound some, and then played back to

check sound quality. Mr. Mee and MTG then watch Jack White video

segment on how the frame edge markings and scratches could have

been produced.]

MTG. Your comments on that?

MR. MEE. One comment is on the theory that you an oval cutout

area was filled in with a figure. Cutting an oval out and then

inserting a body and then a head--I think that would be just too

difficult to accomplish without leaving tell-tale signs. You're

allowing too many areas where your tampering can be detected.

You're multiplying your suspected area by a whole bunch, as

opposed to just putting the head on and [tape unclear]. That

would be a little bit easier to do. That could be done. But

when you have to retouch such a large area, I think that would be

picked up. It would leave too many tell-tale signs. I wouldn't

really agree with that.

MTG. So, then, the first way that White suggested, of making an

exposure with just the edge markings on it, and then combining

this with the composite photo. . . .

MR. MEE. Yes, that could be done. It's feasible to do something

like that. The process of the sandwiching, though, might be a

little difficult to hide. This is not to say that it couldn't

be done, but then you'd be dealing with another negative and

probably with different characteristics.

But, the idea that a negative was shot that just had the edge

markings on it, and only the edge markings--something like that

would be difficult to achieve.

If you took the film and wound it across the IR camera without

making an exposure, and then developed that negative, you'd have

a clear type of, well, what we call an overlay, which you could

combine with a picture, instead of actually shooting any type of

picture through the IR camera. You see, otherwise, as soon as

you--even with the cap on--as soon as you open that up, you're

still going to get some type of traces of a different negative.

Now you could sandwich them together, and, again, we're talking

about making a print, and then working with that print and then

copying it. So that's a possibility. Something along those

lines. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's how they did it,

132

but it could have been done in this fashion.

MTG. So they, possibly, took some film, dragged it across the

film plane aperture, but did not snap a picture? Then, they

took the film out and that would have given them an overlay?

MR. MEE. Yes, that would give you an acetate overlay, a clear

film. Once you develop it, since it hasn't been struck by

light, it will come out clear. So then, you could place your

composite onto the acetate overlay and make a print and then copy

the print with a different camera. It would be possible to do

that.

MTG. So what would. . . .

MR. MEE. But there's one thing: Keep in mind that if you

copied the print with the IR, you would have multiple streaks and

edge marks. And you would probably have a shadowing type of

effect, or a ghosting type of effect, where you'd get one and

then another one close by. Even if they had tried to drag the

film through the camera again exactly as they had done before, I

think you would still be able to pick up slight variations in the

marks with a microscope.

MTG. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact

that the photographic panel omitted the nose, earlobe, and chin

measurements in the backyard photos from its Penrose study.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Just pretty much what I said last time. You don't do

that kind of a study and then leave out relevant measurements.

I'm surprised that the chin measurement wasn't considered. The

guys on that panel knew that the chin in these pictures was a

disputed area, according to the other articles that you gave me.

MTG. Oh, yes. They knew. The chin had been disputed for a long

time before that.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Well, that just makes it harder to understand

how they could have left it out when they did their calculations.

MTG. Could they have done this because the chin, and the other

things, threw off the total measurements too much?

MR. MEE. Let me put it this way: I don't know why they would

have left out ANY measurements, especially the chin, of all

things.

[Mr. Mee and MTG then view Jack White video segment on the

idea that the DeMohrenschildt photo was somehow produced without

the IR camera negative, and that the backyard photos could have

been made prior to being made with the IR camera.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

133

MR. MEE. It's quite possible.

MTG. So the DeMohrenschildt picture indicates that the backyard

photos could have been made before they were made with the IR

camera and that a better camera was used? I mean. . . .

MR. MEE. I think I know what you're getting at. When you

start talking about high-quality cameras, you're talking about

the lens not as much as the camera, and you would use a high-

quality lens to copy things, because you want to try to reduce

the aberrations and the contrasts, and all the things that go

with an inferior-quality lens when you're copying. You're

already losing something. You don't want to lose anything else.

So you use the best type of lens that you can get. So, that's

consistent with what would be normal practice if you had a

picture that was being worked on. You would copy that picture

with a more expensive camera, to preserve as much of the quality

as possible.

And, with the edge markings, you're talking about more of an

original type of negative, or rather an original type of a print

from a full negative. That's not to say that would be

the original print, or the original negative. You could take

a print and copy it, and you would still get the edge markings,

but it would be printed full negative, as in the case of the

DeMohrenschildt photo. That would be the only difference,

whereas with the other pictures you might not be seeing the

full print.

During that time [the 1960s], they would do a certain amount of

cropping on the edges. This is done quite often with automatic

printers. You'll look at the picture and say, "Wait a second.

Why is this person's hand cut off, when I can see it on the

negative?" So that's pretty customary.

MTG. How much of the picture on the negative would one usually

expect to be cropped? I mean, like, if you were going to give a

percentage, would you say it would be cropped 20 percent? Ten

percent?

MR. MEE. Well, you can't really say, because it depends on the

format. It depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the

machine you're using. It depends on the enlarger you're using,

and the operator who's using it. It gets back to format. For

example, say you've got a 35mm negative. To get a 35mm print,

full negative--for instance in a 7 X 10. . . . [pauses] But most

people don't have 7 X 10 frames; they have 8 X 10 frames. So,

what has to happen is that it has to be blown up so that the 7

goes to an 8, but then you have to cut off the edges. In that

situation, you would cut off about 20 percent of the picture. So

that's one example of how cropping can come into play. There are

a lot of variables. It's hard to say.

MTG. Okay. So now. . . .

MR. MEE. I would say that normally, when you're copying a

134

picture, you'll want to crop in enough to where you can't see the

edging. Your attempt is to try to get in as much of the original

picture as possible, if you're trying to get the fullest picture

possible without the edging.

To get in as much as possible, you'd cut it really close. You'd

want to crop it enough so that you couldn't see whatever was on

the edges. You wouldn't want to be able to see the edging of the

picture which has a texture and has fibers in it.

MTG. Before we move on to other areas, am I right in saying

that it is your position that the presence of the frame edge

markings and the scratches alone is not absolute proof of the

backyard photos' authenticity?

MR. MEE. Right. I'm not convinced that those markings prove

that the photos weren't doctored.

MTG. Okay. The next area, then.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on Oswald's

expression in the backyard photos. White's view is that the

person in the picture could not have gone from the smile

to the frown without noticeably moving surrounding facial

muscles.]

MTG. Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, I don't think that's a significant piece of

evidence. Every person is different. The degree that you're

smiling or frowning can be ever so subtle. The facial muscles

don't have to change that much. They [the other muscles]

wouldn't necessarily be noticed in these photographs.

Granted, if he had a big grin, it would change a lot of different

things. It would change smile lines, the way the light hits him,

what kinds of shadows would be created. Or, if he had a big

frown. The difference in expression in those two photographs

appears to be ever so slight, but it's hard to tell without

looking at enlargements of the originals. It's possible that the

frown or the smile was retouched. Both could have been

retouched.

MTG. The HSCA photographic panel said that the different

expressions--the smile and the frown--showed that this was not

the same head pasted onto separate photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. Well, it's possible that the mouth was

retouched. The heads in the photos could be the same head. But,

I don't think that that argument alone is a strong argument for

saying that the same head appears in all the photos. There are

other things that are more compelling as evidence that the same

head was used. The mouth could have been retouched.

Or, there could have been more than one photograph taken of his

[Oswald's] head, and then those pictures could have been used in

the photos. You could use two heads just as easily as you could

135

use one. But that wouldn't change the problems with the lighting

characteristics, the shadows. If two photos of the head were

used, they were photographed in one setting, and with the head in

the same position in each picture.

MTG. Right. Oh, by the way, it's interesting that Kirk and

McCamy criticized Jack White's use of overlays, but in order to

detect the smile and the frown they themselves used overlays.

MR. MEE. Yeah. [Mr. Mee smiles noticeably as he says this.]

MTG. Okay, let's see. Where's my copy of the extract? Oh, yes.

I'd like to ask you about the two other things that were

mentioned as evidence that the same head was not used, namely the

differences in the eyes and the puffing of the lower lip in the

frown. The argument is that this is more evidence that the

heads aren't all the same.

MR. MEE. Well, you could make that argument. I'm not ruling out

the possibility that two heads were used. The differences in the

eyes would indicate that more than one photo of the head was

used. But, from looking at these photographs here, it's hard for

me to tell. [Mr. Mee points to the mouth and the eyes, and then

pauses to examine the photos.]

Could we look at that segment again? What I want to see is that

part that shows the head enlarged.

MTG. Sure.

[The portion of the video segment showing the head enlargements

is replayed twice. Mr. Mee then looks at the book copies of the

photos again.]

MR. MEE. I can see a slight difference in the eyes. But, you

can't say that these things couldn't have been retouched either.

I really wish. . . .

MTG. Including the. . . . Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. MEE. No, go ahead.

MTG. Including the eyes? The eyes could have been retouched?

MR. MEE. The eyes could have been retouched. But, on the other

hand, when you're looking at a negative, and you're trying to

determine which photo goes with which negative, one of the things

you look for is the subtlety of the smile, because it can change,

ever so slightly. So, it's possible that more than one

photograph of Oswald's head was used.

It's hard to tell from the pictures I'm looking at here. If I

had the originals, I could make a better determination. After

looking at the enlargements on the video, and at all these

copies [of the photos] again, my guess would be that two pictures

of the head were used, and that the head was photographed at

around noon. But, when the one head was put on at a tilt, the

136

nose and eye shadows were overlooked. That [the idea that two

head pictures were used] would be the more logical assumption.

But, again, this isn't to say that the mouth and eyes couldn't

have been retouched enough to create these differences. I'd

really have to look at the originals.

MTG. Okay. McCamy also brought up the fact that the lower

lip. . . .

MTG. Okay. We got cut off there. I was going to ask you about

the puffing out of the lower lip.

MR. MEE. Yes. That really doesn't say a whole lot in terms of

whether or not there's been retouching or if more than one photo

of the head was used.

MTG. Okay. I've got another segment I'd like to show you.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the stance

of the figure in the backyard photos.]

MTG. Okay. The problem with the center of weight and also with

the stance when the figure is reversed--any comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I'm not sure exactly what Mr. White's trying to

say by pointing this out. Granted, the figure is standing there

in an awkward position, regardless of the head. The head here

doesn't seem to have any bearing on how this person is standing.

Maybe that's what he's trying to point out.

But the nature of photography is that you're catching the subject

in an instant. And to say that people stand or walk around all

the time in complete balance is not feasible. We see people off

balance in photographs all the time. He [the figure in the

backyard photos] could have been shifting his weight, or starting

to walk, or taking a step backwards. There are a lot of

different things that he could have done to make his stance look

odd. It does look odd, mind you. Certainly it does look odd.

But I don't know that you can say that the stance is not natural.

MTG. What about the claim that the figure's center of gravity

lies outside his weight-bearing foot? If this is actually the

case, what would that mean?

MR. MEE. Well, to me it is a moot point. People don't always

stand perfectly balanced. You see this all the time. I don't

know exactly what the suggestion is here. If it's that the body

was retouched in some way, I'd have a problem with that. I don't

know why, if someone went to such lengths to fake these

photographs--I don't know why they would need to retouch the legs

or the upper body.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicting

body shadows.]

MR. MEE. Can we watch that segment again?

137

[Video segment is shown several times.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, something is definitely wrong with the body

shadows. I don't see quite the difference that Mr. White does,

but I do see a difference. I don't know that I would say that

one body shadow is right at ten o'clock and that the other one is

right at twelve o'clock.

MTG. Well, I think he's phrasing the differences in terms

of approximations. In other words, he's not saying that one's in

a perfect ten o'clock position and that the other's right at a

twelve o'clock position. Let's watch the segment again.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Video segment is reviewed again.]

MTG. You see what I mean?

MR. MEE. Right. Okay. And, as I said, I can see that there's a

difference in the body shadows. They seem to have been made

at different times of the day.

Now, if I you wanted to make every possible allowance for body

movement or camera movement, or both, I could see how you could

perhaps say that the time difference between these pictures was a

matter of minutes, several minutes, as far as when the body

shadows were made. I could see how you could reach this

conclusion.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. Now, the shadows cast by the head and the neck in

133-A--they look odd to me.

MTG. How so?

MR. MEE. Well, the shadow of the neck looks too narrow. And the

head--I don't know if its shadow should angle off that much, when

it doesn't do that in B or C. The shadow cast by the neck is

thicker in B and C too. These could be real shadows, mind you,

but they do look a little off to me.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. It's hard to say, though. It would really help if I

could look at the originals. Again, they could be real shadows.

I'm just saying that looking at them here, they do seem a little

strange.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

in 133-C the body shadow runs up onto the fence, whereas the

body shadows in A and B don't.]

MTG. Comments?

138

MR. MEE. Well, to say that these photographs were taken within

seconds of each other, I think, is impossible. There's just too

much variance in the directions in the body shadows. They [the

body shadows] have definitely changed positions.

Now, about that C photograph--and, again, this is without looking

at the original--but what could cause that [the shadow running up

onto the fence] would be if the figure were a little farther

back. You've got to consider any lean, too. The weight shift

here [in 133-C], so that he's leaning back more, could cause

the shadow to go up onto the fence. It wouldn't take that much

of a shift or lean to make it go up onto the fence. I don't

think that's an unreasonable amount. I mean, you can see this

for yourself by standing in front of a bright light. You can see

how much you can change the length of your shadow just by leaning

a little bit.

MTG. Okay. So the body shadow on the fence, that is, the head

going up onto the fence, could be due to a slight shift or lean?

MR. MEE. Right. And, by the way, I think the suggestion that

two different people were used, wearing the same clothes, is

really unlikely. I don't think they would have used two

different bodies, especially ones that were different heights.

MTG. Right. That makes sense.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the blurriness

of the right-hand fingers in 133-A.]

MTG. Okay. On the blurriness of the fingers on his right hand.

MR. MEE. Well, yeah, that's the way it appears. But that could

have been caused by a couple different things. He could have

been moving that hand. Or, light might have been reflecting off

the newspaper and into the shadow areas of the hand, which would

take away some of the detail around the fingers. If his hand

were slightly angled, just ever so slightly, and with the

reflection from the newspaper, that would make the fingers look

stubby too. Those are more likely possibilities. I don't know

why a retouch artist would have tampered with anything in that

area.

MTG. Yeah, you'd think they would have had the guy just hold the

newspapers, and so they wouldn't have to do any retouching there.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay. Now, in this next segment. . . . Well, let's take

a look at it.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on White's finding

that when he enlarged the figure in 133-A to match Oswald's

height of 5 feet 9 inches, the length of the rifle was too long,

and that when be brought the rifles to the same size, to match

the alleged murder weapon's official size of 40.2 inches, the

139

figure appeared to be six inches too short.]

MTG. Okay. What are your thoughts on this?

MR. MEE. The person's height could be different, and that would

be another indication of fraud in these photos. I don't know

why they would have used a stand-in who was so much shorter than

Oswald, though. You'd think they would have gotten someone who

was about Oswald's height.

MTG. Along that line, one of the Oswald impersonators was

said by two or three witnesses to be quite a bit shorter than

Oswald.

MR. MEE. Huh. That's interesting. Well, I'd have to examine

Mr. White's methodology more closely before I reached any

conclusions here, though. When you're doing these kinds of

comparisons, you've got to figure in other factors, like

whether or not there was any tilting of the camera, how the

person was standing, the relationship to other objects in the

picture, that sort of thing. But. . . .

MTG. Does the figure look like it's leaning or tilted very much?

MR. MEE. Well, I was just about to say that the figure doesn't

look like he's leaning to the point that it would be that hard to

determine the height. He appears to be standing pretty much

straight up. Now, you don't know exactly how the camera was

being held, but I wouldn't guess that it was held way off

balance, to look at these pictures.

[Phone rings. Tape recorder is placed on pause. After MTG

hangs up the phone, the interview is resumed but the recorder is

accidentally left on pause. After about a minute, MTG realizes

that tape recorder is still on pause.]

MTG. Okay. We had a little snafu there. Let me ask you

this again. What is your opinion of Jack White's work overall?

MR. MEE. Well, overall, I'd say it's pretty good. I don't agree

with some of it. I think he's reading too much into certain

things. But, in general, I think he's on the right track. I

mean, from everything I've seen so far, from all the copies and

everything that I've looked at so far, I would say he's made some

valid arguments.

MTG. Well, you know that British photographic expert mentioned

in the video, Jeffrey Crowley, looked at White's work and was

quite impressed with it.

MR. MEE. Uh-huh. Yeah, I remember that. I mean, the guy [Jack

White] does make some mistakes, but overall he makes a pretty

good case.

MTG. Okay. Fair enough.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view the Jack White video segment on the

140

conflict between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin,

and on the line that goes from one side of the neck, across the

chin, to the other side of the neck.]

MTG. Okay. I think I'll bracket the issue of the shape of the

chin. I've got a lot of pictures of Oswald, going clear back

into his junior high or high school days, and they all show him

with a sharp, cleft chin. I know in his testimony, McCamy said

he found some pictures of Oswald as a youth in which his chin was

a little broader and slightly flat. Even Congressman Fithian

wasn't convinced, and I haven't found that to be the case at all

in the photos that I have of Oswald as a youth. This isn't the

issue anyway, since the backyard photos supposedly show Oswald

as an adult. And all the photos of Oswald as an adult show

him with a sharp, cleft chin. I'd like to return to the

issue of the chin later when we discuss McCamy's claim that

the edge of the chin disappears in shadow.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. I'd also like to hold off on discussing the line across

the chin until we review McCamy's argument that it was caused

by a water spot. All right?

MR. MEE. That's fine.

MTG. I just wanted to show you that segment to provide some

background for when we get to those issues in a few minutes.

MR. MEE. All right.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the conflicts

between the nose shadow and the neck and body shadows, and

on the non-movement of the nose shadow even when the head is

tilted.]

MTG. Comments?

MR. MEE. Well, I think this is the area where you get into the

most convincing evidence that these photographs have been

doctored--the lighting characteristics. You can see in these

photographs that the nose and eye shadows do not match the neck

shadow. They don't match the shadow that falls down from the

body either. They don't match. We only have one sun, and that's

the problem. Even if we had two suns, their light still could

not produce the differences in the shadows in the backyard

photos. And I think that all the things that that panel [the

photographic panel] cited to substantiate these photos aren't

nearly as important as the shadow characteristics.

MTG. I was going to ask you about that later, but as long

as we're on the subject. . . . Now, McCamy, instead of dealing

with the problems in the shadows themselves, appealed to a

vanishing point analysis. He never actually got around to

explaining why the nose and eye shadows drop straight down,

while, on the other hand, you have a big patch of light on the

left side of the neck; and why you have the body shadows in A and

141

C falling at about a ten o'clock position. Instead of dealing

head-on with those problems, he appealed to a vanishing point

analysis. We'll get into this more later, but for right now I'd

like to ask you if you think that an analysis of that kind can

overrule what you're able to see in the photos themselves as far

as the contrasting shadows?

MR. MEE. No, not at all. The shadows themselves, the different

angles that they show, their shape, the areas that they should

cover but don't--these have got to be dealt with directly. No

form of analysis is going to convince me that those shadows are

not different shadow groups.

MTG. Okay. Now. . . .

MR. MEE. Let me give you a little background on why I say this.

There are a lot of ways to alter shadows in photography. But in

this situation, where the figure was outdoors, during the day,

and where there was only one light source, there is just no way

that all the shadows in these photos could have occurred at the

same time of day.

Now, it could be argued that the reason there is more light on

the neck in 133-A is that you're getting a reflection off the

newspaper, but in B and C the newspaper is out to the side,

and. . . .

MTG. The patch of light is still there. . . .

MR. MEE. It's still there. It's still consistent. And that

shouldn't be. Most of the neck on both sides should be in

shadow, to be consistent with the eye and nose shadows.

And the nose shadow should not stay in that V-shape, coming

straight down onto the upper lip, when the head is tilted. Now,

with the tilt of the head here, you wouldn't see a big difference

in the nose shadow, but you would see some difference. The shape

and the angle would change. It [the nose shadow] shouldn't look

like that with the head tilted.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on two unnatural

bulges in the backyard photos, one in the neck in 133-A and the

other in the post in 133-B, and on the fact that these bulges are

parallel to each other.]

MR. MEE. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MTG. On the bulges. Any comments on the bulges and on the fact

that they're parallel to each other? Could it be that a

retoucher might have goofed on the neck, spotted it, and then

decided to move the goof to the post in the hope that if he

moved it to a background image it would be less noticeable?

MR. MEE. Even good retouchers sometimes make small errors. I

can see the bulges. I can see what he's [Mr. White's] talking

142

about here. This goes along with the theory that these are

composite photographs and that they would have required

retouching.

MTG. Now, in the photographic panel's report. . . . Well, the

panel apparently had a hard time explaining the bulge in the

post. The theory that the panel put in writing was that the

indentation was an optical illusion caused by the shadow of a

twig. . . .

MTG. Okay. Let's go over that again. I'm going to read

the explanation given by the photographic panel:

What could be perceived as an indentation in the

post in CE 133-B is believed by the undersigned to

be an illusion resulting from the location of a

shadow of a branch or a leaf along the edge of the

post.

Okay, and you said you have a problem with that.

MR. MEE. Well, the problem I have with that, keeping in mind

the angle of the body shadows and others, is that a branch or a

leaf here would have been struck by sun coming from around a four

o'clock position. Therefore, a branch or leaf shadow here would

fall in about a ten or eleven o'clock position, and so I don't

think the bulge here could have resulted from a natural shadow.

With the sun coming in from a four o'clock angle, I don't see how

that bulge could have been caused by the shadow from a branch or

a leaf. The angle's not right. Can we look at the part about

this in the video again?

MTG. Sure.

[Video segment is replayed. Afterwards, Mr. Mee then examines

the book and xeroxed copies of the photos again.]

MR. MEE. No, I don't see how that bulge could have been caused

by a shadow from a branch or a leaf. I don't see it. The shadow

angle would be wrong. The sun's in the wrong position to do

that. I'd like to see the originals, though. For a small detail

like this, you want to look at the original photos. But from

what I can see here, I really don't think this bulge was caused

by any kind of a branch or a leaf shadow--not with the sun

shining the way it is in these pictures.

What about the bulge in the neck? How do they explain it? I

didn't see that discussed anywhere in the extract.

MTG. No, Kirk and McCamy didn't deal with that. There's nothing

about it in that file [PHOTOS.ZIP]. I don't know if the panel's

report deals with it either. I don't think the panel tried to

explain it. If they had offered an explanation, I think Groden

and Livingstone would have tried to answer it. I could be wrong,

though. It's kind of hard to believe they wouldn't have tried to

explain this, but I don't know. I still haven't gotten a copy of

the panel's report. So I really don't know.

143

MR. MEE. Okay. Well, that neck bulge needs to be explained. It

doesn't look natural, and it's parallel to the bulge in the post.

It disappears in 133-B, but then you have an indentation in the

post [in B].

MTG. Uh-huh. In his HSCA testimony, Jack White suggested that

the forger's knife slipped and caused the post bulge. Could

something like that have caused the bulge in the neck?

MR. MEE. Possibly. Something's definitely off there.

MTG. Oh, I wanted to ask you about McCamy's explanation of the

indentation in the post.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Let me read it here. He was referring to a computer

printout that was produced by digital image processing.

Our inspection of this leads us to believe that

the apparent indentation is simply a shadow,

because if you look very carefully, you can see

the post running through that area, and this is

just a slight darkening. So that was merely a

shadow.

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that's consistent with the direction

of the sun in the pictures. It's not consistent with the way the

bulge looks.

MTG. So, just to summarize, you're saying that the sun,

according to the body shadow, isn't in a position where it

could cause a shadow that would produce the indentation

in the post?

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me.

MTG. Just to let you know, to my knowledge the panel never

identified which leaf or branch could have possibly caused such a

shadow. They simply said the bulge COULD have been caused by the

shadow from a leaf or a branch, but they didn't say which leaf or

branch.

MR. MEE. Okay.

[Mr. Mee and MTG view Jack White video segment on the fact that

a patch of sunlight on the side of the house beside the post

holding the stairway does not change shape in any of the backyard

pictures, indicating that the camera making the photo did not

move horizontally. This patch of light is to the left of the

post and is roughly parallel with the figure's right elbow.]

MTG. Now, on the non-movement of that one shadow underneath

the stairway. If it doesn't change shape or position, even

though the pictures were supposedly taken with a hand-held

camera, what does that say? I'm asking this because, supposedly,

144

she [Marina] took the first picture. Snap. Then, Oswald came,

took the camera from her, advanced the film, handed it back to

her, and then went back to where he was. She then had to and

position the camera again. And then this process was REPEATED

for the third picture. So how could that patch of light not

change in some way?

MR. MEE. The possibility that that patch of light would stay

in the same position and maintain the same shape after all that

movement is remote. You'd need a tripod, and even then you'd

have to be careful. Can we see that again?

[Video segment is replayed several times.]

MR. MEE. I think I can see what he's talking about, but can we

look at that a couple more times?

[Video segment is replayed two more times.]

MR. MEE. Okay, let me take another look at these pictures really

quickly.

MTG. Oh, sure. Take your time.

[Mr. Mee studies pictures for approximately one minute.]

MTG. Do you see what he's talking about?

MR. MEE. Yes. I would agree with that.

MTG. So wouldn't that be almost impossible using a hand-held

camera, especially given the way that these pictures were

supposedly taken?

MR. MEE. I would say it would be nearly impossible. The chances

of something like that happening would be astronomically small.

MTG. All right. . . .

MR. MEE. Even if you were using a modern camera, one that would

automatically advance the film after each shot, and were taking

a series of pictures, your chances of achieving that effect

would be low. They'd be better, but still very low.

MTG. All right. Now, if I'm not mistaken, I think we have just

one more segment.

[MTG starts to play the video tape and then realizes there are no

more video segments.]

MTG. Nope. That was it. That was the last of the segments.

MR. MEE. All right.

MTG. Okay. Now, a little while back, I got a message on

CompuServe from a gentleman named Paul Burke. In reference to

Jack White's secondary method for producing the frame edge

145

markings on the photos, he said, "Copying a photo assembled from

a group of photos as you and others have postulated using the

Imperial Reflex camera has a problem. Its focus ability, if any,

is limited, so the master montage would have to be large, a

couple of feet or so," which you said last time you didn't argue

with. . . .

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Okay, and then he continues, "and it would have all sorts

of granular discontinuities between the segments making it up,

such as sharp lines for the cuts, etc., etc."

MR. MEE. Well, I'd have to know more about the scenario he

has in mind. What are we talking about here? I mean, how

were the first pictures taken? What was in them? How many

copies are we talking about?

The appearance of your final product will depend on several

factors. It's going to depend on things like the quality of your

original photos, the camera, the enlarging equipment and

materials, and the retouching. There are a lot of things

that would come into play.

As far as size goes, it probably would be a rather large

photograph in this scenario. Your composite--it would have to be

a rather big picture. With the lighting in these pictures [the

backyard photos], I would guess that they used medium-speed film.

But there are so many things you'd have to establish first before

you made a judgment. And, also, the farther down the line you go

from your original, the more quality you're going to lose.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Another thing--these pictures ARE grainy. I'm talking

about A, B, and C. They are not that sharp. They do have a

lot of texture and grain to them. Plus, you've got that

tell-tale line running across the chin, and the other things

[i.e., the bulge in the neck in 133-A and the indentation in the

post in 133-B].

MTG. All right. This thing about the chin, the line across the

chin in 133-A. Now, in the extract, we read that McCamy was

POSITIVE that the line that runs from one side of the neck to the

other, crossing the chin--that that line was caused by a water

spot. The panel as a whole, however, did not go this far. In

the report it says that the cause of the lines has not been

definitely determined. But I wanted to ask you what you thought

of McCamy's explanation?

MR. MEE. Well, I was reading through that, and I had some

problems with it. The. . . .

MTG. Okay. So you said you had some problems with McCamy's

explanation, with his claim that the irregular line across

the chin was caused by a water spot. This is the line that

Jack White mentions as well.

146

MR. MEE. Well, there are a couple things. One thing is the

sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin

area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is

supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line

that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the

chin, and then ends at the other side--right where Oswald's head

could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a

good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin

area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed

to be a water spot.

The other problem I have with what he says has to do with

his statements about the line as a photographic image.

MTG. Now, this is just before he starts talking about water

spots. You're talking about where he says the line isn't a

photographic image.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Again, that line is the one that Jack White discusses in

the video, the one that starts off on one side of the upper neck,

crosses the chin, and then goes to the other side of the neck.

MR. MEE. Right.

MTG. Just to give us some context here, why don't I go

ahead and read exactly what he said about the line.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. Let's see. . . . Here it is. This was McCamy.

Now that fine line is actually too fine to be a

photographic image. The photographic image is

made up of silver grains, and these grains are

distributed all through here, so we have a good

idea of their size and distribution. This line is

a line that is much finer than the silver grains

themselves. It is much too continuous to be a

photographic line. A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have

had the grain pattern of a discontinuous line, but

this line is quite continuous. Indeed, we can

follow this line down up to here and then back

around to here. It is a closed loop.

MR. MEE. Now, when you talk about what has been photographed--

what you see in the picture--that has no bearing on the grains in

the negative emulsion. The grains are more a characteristic of

the film itself than what has been produced from a photographic

print. So, when he ways, "This line is a line that is much finer

than the silver grains themselves. This is much too continuous

to be a photographic line"--this, to me, holds no water at all.

He's looking at the A print, not at the negative, so his argument

holds no water.

147

[Mr. Mee again reads from the extract] "A line that had been

photographed from some kind of montage would have had the

grain pattern of a discontinuous line." Now, again, that's

coming from a print, but what you'd need to look at would be the

negative, and he didn't examine the A negative. So his

argument is not valid. It doesn't prove anything. You see,

the grain is a characteristic of the negative, not the print.

I mean, even forgetting about that part of his argument, what

he's saying is that it [the line] doesn't have a grain pattern

running through it. The line is so fine that he says it's

getting in between the grain, which would put it in the emulsion.

It's like a sandwich, kind of like with two pieces of plastic,

and then the water spot would be sitting on top. But I think

that would be so obvious that there would be no doubt about it.

When he says the line on the chin is part of a closed loop, I'm

sort of at a disadvantage because I don't have the exhibit he was

using. So it's hard for me to comment. But if that irregular

line is part of a closed loop and was caused by a water spot,

then the loop is the outline of the water spot. Now that line is

almost straight, and water spots don't normally have edges like

that. I mean, water spots . . . well . . . they're just that--

they're spots. They're usually more oblique. They're not going

to have long straight edges.

And I'd like to see where the other edges of this loop are. I

mean, they don't seem to be in the face. Just looking at these

pictures here, I can see the line across the chin, but I don't

see any other tell-tale lines in the face. So I'd like to know

where the other edges [of the loop] are.

MTG. Okay. What I'd like to do now is ask you about McCamy's

point concerning what they saw when they examined the negative,

the 133-B negative, with a phase contrast microscope. Let me

just read that part, okay?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. [Reading from the extract]

We examined the negative with a phase contrast

microscope, which would detect very, very small

changes in thickness in the negative.

He didn't come right out and say it, but I assume he was saying

that they checked the negative with that high-powered microscope

and didn't find any changes in thickness in the chin area in the

negative.

MR. MEE. Well, the thickness of the negative is not necessarily

going to be relevant. What I'm saying is that the original

photograph could have been copied and then a negative could have

been made from that. So you're not going to see any difference

in density in the negative if the negative came from a retouched

photo.

148

MTG. Uh-huh. Oh, let's go back to the water spot for just a

second if we could. I wanted to ask you something else about

what McCamy said about it.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. He said, "We did not see water spots. . . ." Now, in the

extract the word "not" is missing, but it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. As you read on, it's obvious that that's

what he was saying. [Resumes reading]

We did not see water spots on 133-B, but we do see

that this same spot occurs on both of these first-

generation prints of the A negative, so we know

that the spot must have been on the negative.

Any comments on that?

MR. MEE. Well, to me, what he's saying is inconsistent. He's

saying that the water spot had to be on the A negative because

it's on the print, and that it's not part of the photographic

image. But unless you see the negative, you can't really say

that.

MTG. Now, just for the record here, let me read what the

[photographic] panel said about the irregular lines that

appeared on the scanned image of the B negative. I'm reading

from Groden and Livingstone's book HIGH TREASON.

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Let me go ahead and read that out of the book.

MR. MEE. Okay.

MTG. They're quoting directly from the photographic panel's

report. Let's see. . . . Here it is. [Reads from page

201 of HIGH TREASON]

Under very carefully adjusted display conditions,

the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative

did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin

area.

The panel went on to say that the lines were probably caused

by "very faint water stains." Comments?

MR. MEE. Yes, I meant to ask you about their reference to

"lines," not just a single line. What other lines did they find?

MTG. You know, to be honest, I don't know. I've wondered about

that myself, because McCamy only mentioned one line that was

found with digital image scanning.

MR. MEE. Huh. Well, as far as what we just read, I would

say it's evidence of tampering. I don't accept the idea that

149

that line across the chin was caused by a water spot, at least

not at this stage I don't. Now, again, I haven't seen the

exhibit that shows the shape of the water spot that McCamy says

caused the line, but I'd be surprised if it caused me to change

my mind. I just don't think a water spot would leave that kind

of a line.

MTG. Okay. Now, McCamy said that they examined the chin area

with digital image processing and that they didn't find any

granular inconsistencies.

MR. MEE. Well, if you matched the film speed, using the kind of

film that was common back then, it would be hard to prove

something either way. Back then there was pretty much one way of

making film.

If you had a forger who knew his stuff and who knew the kinds

of things that would be checked for later on, you'd have to

guess that he would have done his best to match the grain

characteristics. This wouldn't have been impossible. If

he had access to the negatives of the pictures of Oswald's

head, it could have been done.

What I'm saying is that the tampering, the pasting of the head

onto the figure's chin, could have been done well enough to where

they [the members of the photographic panel] would not have been

able to pick it up with the technology that they had at that

time.

MTG. Ah, here's the part I was looking for you. If I could,

I'd like to read this to you. This is about the grain pattern

again.

One of the things that we wanted to do was to

study the nature of the silver grain in the areas

above the chin and below the chin, because of the

allegation that there were two different

photographs in some way. And so we did

that. . . . And as photographic scientists, we

found nothing remarkable about the grain pattern.

This was the same type of grain pattern.

MR. MEE. But, again, if the forger matched up the film, there

wouldn't be any noticeable difference in the grain. It [digital

image processing] would be inconclusive. Now, I'm not saying

this would be an easy process. It would all depend on if you had

the negatives of the pictures of the head.

MTG. To match the film, you mean.

MR. MEE. Right. But it could be done. With the way film was

made back then--there was pretty much one way of making film--if

you matched the film speed, assuming you had access to the

negative of each head shot you were using, you could match the

film characteristics.

MTG. So your position is that the things that they claimed to

150

have observed through digital image processing in and of

themselves cannot prove that these are authentic photographs?

MR. MEE. No, I don't think that digital image processing alone

can prove these photographs are authentic. With the technology

that was available back then [in the late 1970s], I don't think

they could have proven this. I don't know that it could be done

today--possibly, with the scanning technology that's just

coming out, you could do it. It would depend on how carefully

the forger matched the film and on what steps he went through to

fake the photographs. There are a lot of variables.

MTG. All right. Vanishing point analysis. I'm a layman, and

when I read this, I got the impression that they didn't want to

deal with the shadow angles themselves, so they resorted to

this vanishing point analysis. They tried to explain all the

shadow problems in the pictures--the neck, the nose and the eyes,

the body shadows--with vanishing point analysis. Let me read

this so we have some context here:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, how did the panel

address the question of the shadows in the

backyard pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. This was addressed by a vanishing

point analysis.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What do you mean by "vanishing

point analysis"?

Mr. MCCAMY. The sun is very distant, so far away

that we can consider it to be at infinity, and as

a result, if we draw a line from an object to the

shadow of the object, and we do this in a number

of places in a scene, all of those lines are

parallel lines.

Now you may recall, if you have ever seen a

photograph of railroad tracks disappearing into

the distance, the photograph shows those two rails

converging at a point. That is called the

vanishing point. The rails are parallel but in

the photograph they converge. This is taught in

art courses in high school and in mechanical

drawing, so the converging of parallel lines is a

well-known matter of perspective. In a photograph

one should expect that these parallel shadow lines

should converge at the vanishing point. . . .

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes. Here we have 133-A and 133-B. A

line is drawn from a part of this stairway, past

the shadow of the stairway, down to here. A line

is drawn from the butt of the pistol, through the

shadow of the butt of the pistol, down to here,

from the arm to the shadow of the arm, down to

here. And when we do this for all the points in

the photograph, we find that they all meet at a

151

point, as they should.

Now this is the line that passes through the nose

and the chin down to here, and that one is the

nose to the shadow of the nose. That is the one

thing that has been disputed so frequently, and

if you do the analysis properly, you see that the

shadow lies right where it is supposed to lie.

The same thing is true over here. Here we have the

muzzle of the rifle, the shadow of the muzzle of

the rifle, and so on down the line.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, if the lines were not

parallel, would they all meet at one point as they

do in these two exhibits?

Mr. MCCAMY. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. If the lines in these two exhibits

had not met at one point, what conclusion or

inference might you have drawn?

Mr. MCCAMY. We might have drawn the conclusion

that something had been drawn in rather than

traced in by the hand of nature.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you do a similar vanishing

point analysis for 133-C?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. And what were the results?

Mr. MCCAMY. The results were the same.

Now, when you read on, however, it gets a little more

interesting. McCamy was asked about the sharp angles of the

lines in his analysis. I'll find it here. It jumped out at me

as soon as I read it. [MTG looks through extract for a few

seconds] Okay. Here it is. Let me read this. He [McCamy]

was being questioned by Congressman Fithian, who was the only

guy to ask any challenging questions. He [Fithian] said,

This morning I was listening carefully when you

described the vanishing point concept, which I

find fascinating. But I wonder why did the

vanishing point lines converge in such a very,

very short distance on your chart.

Now, I look at a railroad, even an artist's

conception of a railroad track, or a road where it

sort of narrows off. It gives me the impression

that we are talking about, you know, great

distances.

Yet, there are some very, very sharp angles that

152

those lines from the bush and the nose and the

rest of it come in, all within 2 feet on your

chart. Could you explain that optical problem

that I am having?

And here's McCamy's answer:

Yes. The vanishing point may be at infinity; that

is, if we have parallel vertical lines and the

axis of the camera is horizontal. Then we do get

parallel lines, and of course that says that the

vanishing point is at infinity.

Now, a very slight tilt of the camera will cause a

convergence, but it would be a very slight

convergence. It starts at infinity and it begins

to move inward.

Now, on the photographs that we saw here, the

vanishing point of the shadows was substantially

below the photographs. If photographs had been

made later and later in that day, I have estimated

that these pictures were taken about 4 to 4:30 in

the afternoon--if pictures were made later, the

vanishing point would have continued to move up

until finally it would be within the picture area;

that is, as the Sun had moved behind the

photographer.

In the instance that you cite of the railroad

track disappearing into the distance, the

vanishing point is in the picture, and you

are seeing the vanishing point.

I think that is as far as I can go in describing

that phenomenon. The vanishing point can be

anywhere from at infinity to right in the picture

itself.

Now, I didn't quite understand exactly how McCamy explained the

fact that the angles in his chart were so sharp and converged

in such a short distance.

MR. MEE. Well, not having looked at his chart, it's hard for

me to comment on it. I'd have to look at it and see exactly what

we're talking about. Those lines and sharp angles do sound odd,

but I'd need to see the chart itself before I could really form

an opinion here.

But, really, I understand the principle of vanishing points,

and I don't think it's relevant in this case. The real issue is

the conflicts between the shadows. And, another thing, I can

tell you that the sun that hit Oswald's face wasn't in a four

o'clock position. You've also get to deal with the absence of

shadow where there should be shadow. You've got to look at the

shadows themselves--study their angles, determine the direction

of your light source, those kinds of things.

153

I mean, a vanishing point analysis is not about to explain

why Oswald's nose shadow doesn't move or change form in the

photographs. It's not going to explain why you seem to have

two separate light sources hitting the body and the face. It's

not going to explain those bulges [in the neck and the post].

MTG. Okay. The disappearing chin. McCamy said that the

edge of the chin disappeared in shadow. Now, the problem he

was trying to explain is the fact that in the backyard photos

the chin is broad and flat, but in all other pictures of Oswald--

in all those that were taken from any kind of a frontal

viewpoint--his chin is sharp and cleft.

MR. MEE. It HAS disappeared in shadow, but not to the extent

that Oswald's would have, and that's the difference.

MTG. Okay. He [McCamy] was saying that Oswald's chin form

vanished to the point that in the picture it looks like he has a

broad, flat chin.

MR. MEE. No, I would disagree with that. The sun was not in

a position to have that much of an affect on the appearance of

the chin.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, Mr. Fithian, bless his heart, he had

a problem with this, too. Here's part of the exchange he had

with McCamy:

Mr. FITHIAN. Here is a thing that I had the

greatest difficulty with in terms of my own

viewing of the photographs, is the squareness of

the chin.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask that that

multiple photograph, that chart with half a dozen

Oswalds on it, plus the two, could be put back up.

While we are doing this, let me preface my

question by saying that sitting here and looking

at your exhibit, I did not visually at least

identify any other chin that was even

approximately as square as the one in the backyard

photograph--from all of the pictures that you put

up.

I could not see that. I hate to return to what you

have already done. But it still puzzles me and

troubles me. That seems to be one of the

strongest points of the critics, is the misshape

of the chin. I want to make sure I understood

your testimony.

It was your testimony that it was the light and

shadow combination of an overhead Sun or whatever?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

154

Mr. FITHIAN. Do I understand you correctly?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes.

Then they went on for a bit, and then Fithian continued:

Mr. FITHIAN. In the photo, in the two large

blowups, the right-hand photo, is it your

testimony, then, that the point of the chin, which

obviously doesn't disappear--and I find it

difficult to believe that just by changing your

teeth or your mouth position it really makes that

much difference--is it then that the point of the

chin disappears in the shadow of the chin in

layman's terms?

Is that what you are saying happens in that

photograph?

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes, the lower part of the chin is not

illuminated, so you don't see it. It just

disappears in the shadow.

MTG. Do you accept that?

MR. MEE. Well, such a thing is possible, but not in this

instance, because of the position of the sun.

MTG. And that is what?

MR. MEE. The position of the sun?

MTG. Yeah.

MR. MEE. Well, the sun is overhead and to his left.

MTG. Based on the body shadows, you mean?

MR. MEE. Yeah. The sunlight is coming down at him from about

a four o'clock position. So I don't see how it could have made

that much of his chin disappear. I mean, the underside of the

chin is in shadow, but the edge hasn't vanished. The form [of

the chin] is still there.

MTG. What if the sun came from right around a twelve o'clock

position?

MR. MEE. Well, then you'd have to explain why both sides of the

neck aren't in the same amount of shadow, and why the body shadow

falls off to his right.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. I mean, if anything, it seems like there's more chin

there, more than there should be, in terms of width, even if

you ignore how flat it is.

155

MTG. Yeah, I think so too.

MR. MEE. That's how it looks to me. I would say the chin is a

serious problem.

MTG. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the

fact that the panel found only very small variations in the

distances between objects in the background of the pictures.

Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does

that seem possible?

MR. MEE. No, the variations would be greater if these

photographs were taken the way Marina said they were. I mean,

like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks

over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he

hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes

another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the

picture; and they go through this process again for the third

photo. No. . . . No way. The camera would have moved more than

just a tiny fraction of an inch.

Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the

camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations

in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.

MTG. Now, Jack White mentioned that the small differences in

distance could have been produced by keystoning. What do you

think about that?

MR. MEE. Oh, I think he's right. Now, when he was demonstrating

the keystoning effect in the video, he was exaggerating a little

bit to help you understand what he was talking about, but he's

got the right idea. It would be a simple matter of tilting the

easel just a little bit. I mean, any slight movement in the

enlarger or the easel could cause the kinds of differences

they're talking about here.

MTG. Okay. Stereoscopic analysis. They said that when they

analyzed these photos, they were able to view them

stereoscopically. Let me just read some of what McCamy said:

We were able to view these photographs

stereoscopically, so we know that there was slight

camera movement. We know that there were two

pictures. But it has much more far reaching

consequence than that.

It tells us that there was a solid three

dimensional field that was photographed two times.

If one were to have photographed the background

once, and then taken a camera and photographed

that print and then rephotographed the print from

two angles, when that is viewed stereoscopically,

the human eye would tell you that you were looking

at a plane print. That isn't what we saw. We saw

depth, and we can still see depth.

156

Now if one were going to do art work on actual

stereo pairs, that art work has to be done

exceedingly meticulously, because the slightest

difference in the art work on one photograph and

the art work on the other photograph would cause

the points involved to appear to be too far away

or too close. They would tend to float in space.

So stereo viewing is an excellent way of checking

up on the authenticity of the photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is any special viewer necessary to

enable someone to see in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. It is not necessary but it makes it

more convenient for most people.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many panel members examined

these photographs in stereo?

Mr. MCCAMY. At least, oh, a half dozen.

MTG. Any thoughts about that?

MR. MEE. If you have slight movement during the enlarging

process or during the copying process, I think you could get a

different perspective in the photographs that would cause that

effect. So, that doesn't prove. . . . It doesn't convincingly

say that these pictures are authentic.

I mean, I think we've all at one time looked through those little

children's viewfinders and have seen those cartoon slides in

3-D. The reason you get that is that you're looking through two

different eyes and seeing the result of a slight movement of the

prints. The prints of the cartoons have been slightly moved--the

prints you're looking at through the viewfinder. You've got two

prints, and they've been moved slightly, and that's what gives

you your 3-D effect, the slight movement of those prints.

So, in the case of these photographs. . . .

MTG. The backyard photographs.

MR. MEE. Right. In this case, if you had slight movement in

the enlarger or during the copying process, you could get the

right amount of difference between the photos so that you would

be able to view them in stereo.

MTG. Okay. One thing that I'd really like to ask you about

has to do with the DeMohrenschildt photograph and the frame edge

markings. Actually, it doesn't just involve the frame edge

markings. It involves matching the DeMohrenschildt photo to the

IR camera's film plane aperture. We talked about this briefly

last time. Now, when Jack White testified before the Committee,

the House Select Committee. . . .

MR. MEE. Uh-huh.

157

MTG. Okay. Now, this involves the finding of the edge markings

on the edges of the DeMohrenschildt photo and the determination

that the photo is genuine because those markings are unique to

the IR camera. Now, Jack White, when he testified back then,

said. . . . Well, let me read what he said. [Reads from page

205 of HIGH TREASON]

The DeMohrenschildt picture shows a much larger

amount of background around the edges than any of

the photographs, 133-A, B, or C. To me, this

indicates that the DeMohrenschildt picture is

printed full negative. In fact, we can verify

this because it is printed with a black border

around the edge, the black border being the clear

area around the edge of the negative.

According to the FBI, the picture, CE-133-B, was

identified as being taken with Oswald's camera

because it could be matched to the film plane

aperture. Yet, if the DeMohrenschildt picture

shows a larger background area and it is taken

from the same camera viewpoint, then 133-A, B, and

C have been cropped and, therefore, if there is

more background area in the picture, then it [the

DeMohrenschildt photo] could not possibly be

matched to the film plane aperture.

Do you understand his point?

MR. MEE. Yes.

MTG. Can you explain it in layman's terms? Do you think he's

right?

MR. MEE. Well, there are certain things I'd have to know

before I could say whether or not he's right. I'll put it this

way: If the DeMohrenschildt photo has a lot more background than

the B negative, and if both were taken from the same camera

viewpoint, then, yes, that would tend to tell me that Mr. White

is correct. What you'd have to do is make precise measurements

of the DeMohrenschildt picture and the B negative, and then

compare them. You'd also need to know if they were taken from

the same camera viewpoint. You'd want a good, uncropped print of

the B negative. These are the kinds of things I'd need to check

out before I could really say anything about what he [White]

says here.

MTG. In his video, Jack White suggests that the DeMohrenschildt

photo is a composite made up of 133-A and the border of the film

plane aperture of the IR camera.

MR. MEE. Can we see that segment again?

MTG. Yeah.

[Video segment is located on the tape and then replayed.]

158

MR. MEE. No, that explanation. . . . I see what he's saying,

but if you do that, you're going to have sort of a line of

demarcation all the way around. This would be very easy to

identify. Or, let's put it this way: It would be very difficult

to cover up, extremely difficult to cover up, a line like that.

It would be almost impossible to do that.

MTG. Okay. Now to get back to the other point, about the fact

that it's so much clearer than 133-A and. . . .

MR. MEE. It's an earlier generation than the ones that have

been cropped.

MTG. Right. Now how would they have gotten the two scratch

marks onto it [the DeMohrenschildt photo]?

MR. MEE. Well, this gets into how these pictures could have

been made. I'll tell you what I think they might have done.

[Mr. Mee starts to draw a diagram, using squares to represent

pictures and/or negatives. As he presents his explanation, he

points back and forth to the different squares. For instance,

when he refers to "this one" or says "here," he points to a

certain square, and then when he says something like "and then

this one over here," he points to a different square, etc.,

etc.]

You see, what I'm thinking is that there was a group of backyard

photographs made long before the DeMohrenschildt photograph, and

that at some point in this earlier group you have composites.

The first pictures, the very first ones, would be taken with a

high-quality camera, a very high-quality camera. So your first

pictures are all very high quality. Okay?

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And then this group here would be taken from those

pictures, again using a high-quality camera. Now the pictures

in this group would be smaller than the first ones.

And then, after that, just for example, way down the road,

133-A, B, and C were taken from these. Okay? And every time

along the way you're losing a generation.

MTG. Uh-huh.

MR. MEE. And, you never can tell, there may have been more than

a couple generations in between these photos.

Now, in the early stages, we're just talking about the

background--one very high-quality picture of the backyard.

So, then, you get down to here where you have your first pictures

that include the figure holding the rifle and the newspapers.

Okay?

159

MTG. All right.

MR. MEE. Now, there may have been more originals. You don't

know how many could have existed before that.

At this stage here, you introduce one or two heads, and you

retouch those prints. Then, you photograph that print and

you come up with a print and a negative here. And you do that

for each picture. Now, these prints could be retouched, or the

negatives could be retouched. Then, you'd make prints from those

negatives.

Now, you're down to here. This is where we introduce this stage,

here. These photographs can either be the same or a generation

or two down. Okay, then you've got these photos here--they've

had the art work done on them and they've been reworked. Until

now you're using a very high-quality camera. Then, you

photograph one of these photos with the IR camera to make, for

example, the DeMohrenschildt picture, which would give you the

edge markings and the scratches.

MTG. Now, what would happen if you were to analyze, say, the

negative of this photo right here with digital image processing

after all this stuff had been done?

MR. MEE. Well, you've got to remember that you have these other

pictures up here, where the heads are included. The grain

pattern of this photo--the one that you're talking about--is

going to be dependent on the film that has been used. If you

have the negative of the photo of the head, then you know what

kind of film to use.

Let's say you saw that the film used for the head was, oh, 100-

speed Kodak. That was a pretty common film back then, 100-speed.

It might have even been less than that. Now, you would have to

be sure, then, to use 100-speed Kodak to shoot the prints of the

background and of the guy standing with the rifle and the

newspapers. The key would be to keep your film consistent

throughout. That would be very important. Now, if you did this,

it would be extremely difficult, with the technology that they

had during that time, to detect what little differences you

would have with this process. We're talking about the late

seventies?

MTG. 1978 to 1979.

MR. MEE. Right. I don't think they had the technology back then

to be able to discern the small differences you'd have if you

kept your film consistent. Today, possibly, with the

sophistication of the computers and the scanning capabilities

that they're just now coming out with, you might be able to spot

the differences. But in the late seventies, I don't think they

had the capability to detect them. As long as you maintained

the consistency of the film for your photos, they'd all blend

together. It's just like anything else. If your process is

gradual enough, they're going to blend right in. This is how I

160

think these photographs could have been made.

MTG. Do you think there was only one forger?

MR. MEE. No, I think you would have needed a team, a group of

professionals.

MTG. I'd like to show you a couple doctored prints that were

released by Dallas authorities in 1992.

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the two prints, both of which show a white

human silhouette where Oswald is supposed to be. The whited-out

figure corresponds closely in size and outline to the figure in

the backyard photos.]

MR. MEE. Is that right? Well, somebody was doing something.

Now, this doesn't prove that this is how it was done. But these

prints might represent an early attempt to produce the backyard

photos. You never know.

See, the thing is, though, I don't believe the pictures were

made like this because you would have had too much area to

retouch, even for a good retoucher. Here, in the head area, you

would have only had a very small area to worry about. Mind you,

these prints might have been a part of the process. It could

have been done that way. But that's not how I would have done

it.

They [the forgers] probably looked at several different options

for making these photographs, and they would have been looking

for the best method. So these prints could have been one

of the ways that they considered.

MTG. All right. I'd like to ask you about varying exposure

analysis.

MR. MEE. Well, I understand what they were doing. The theory

is that you're trying to. . . .

MTG. Can I go ahead and read a little bit first?

MR. MEE. Sure.

MTG. Okay, I'm going to read some of what McCamy said about

this.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please explain the results of this

varying exposure analysis.

Mr. MCCAMY. Yes. In these illustrations, the

greatest exposure gives the darkest print, and the

least exposure, the lightest print. The advantage

of doing this is that in the lightest areas of the

picture we can see detail here that cannot be seen

up here. Conversely, in the shadows, this is the

best photograph on which to look for the detail.

So that is a print ideally exposed to look into

161

the shadows. This one is ideally exposed to look

into the highlights, so we can see all the detail

there.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. After applying this method, did

the panel discern anything unusual about these

pictures?

Mr. MCCAMY. No, nothing at all. There had been

allegations that the shadows were painted in, and

a simple examination of the shadows on these

pictures shows that there is plenty of detail

there. You can see grass, little stones. There

is a newspaper lying back here. You can see the

detail on it.

Any comments?

MR. MEE. I don't think it's an issue. I mean, I don't think the

shadows were added. Now, I haven't had time to study these

pictures long enough to give a firm opinion in this area. But,

just from what I can see--again, without looking at the

originals--I don't think the shadows were added.

What he's talking about here is altering the exposure so

you can see detail in the shadows. A black and white print has

different grades from lightness to darkness. The full spectrum

is called a zone system. The full spectrum is from 1 to 10--1

being your whitest white, and 10 being your blackest black. Most

cameras and film can only pick up a zone from about. . . . Well,

let's say this is a sliding scale. Your camera might get a very

white white, but it might not get a really dark dark, and it

doesn't get everything in between. So, by altering the exposure,

you can lighten these dark areas and see detail in them.

Now that doesn't explain the problems of the different shadow

angles and the bulges in the post and the neck.

MTG. Right.

MR. MEE. And I still have some questions about the shadow

of the neck and the head in 133-A. It looks a little odd, but

that might be due to using a different head. But the shadows of

the bushes, the stairway, and all that--I don't see why a

retoucher would have bothered with them. It would have been

taking an unnecessary risk. So, really, I'd tend to agree with

him [McCamy]. From what I can see, I don't think the shadows

were added.

MTG. Okay. . . .

MR. MEE. Now, if he's saying that this analysis explains the

shadow angles and those neck and post bulges, then I would

disagree with him. You're not going to explain away those

problems with that sort of analysis.

MTG. It seems to me that the easiest way to explain the

162

different body shadows would be to assume that they were

photographed at different times of the day.

MR. MEE. Yeah, I think they were just taken at different times

of the day.

You see, I understand what some of these guys [conspiracists] are

saying. If you had a situation where you took a picture of the

scene, and then took a picture of a person in a studio or

somewhere else and then put the figure in the picture, then you'd

need to add the shadows. But I agree with him [McCamy] here. I

don't think the shadows were added. It would be a lot easier to

just put a head on a body. I mean, you could put anybody in the

picture. You could take the picture with the background and

the body and everything, and then just take the head and put it

on the figure. That would be a lot easier.

MTG. Okay. I know we talked about this quite a bit last time,

but I'd like to ask you again about the reenactment that McCamy

cited to show that the nose shadow could remain the same even

with the head tilted. I've already discussed this reenactment

in detail in the forum [the JFK Assassination Forum on

CompuServe]. I'd just like to get some of your views on it.

MR. MEE. [Begins shaking his head from side to side in the

typical "No" motion.] Right. Well. . . . [pauses and

continues to shake his head]

MTG. Well, you know, even Congressman Fithian pointed out that

the chances that all those things would occur at the same

time were very low. [Fithian was referring to the manipulated

and unrealistic head and camera movements that were done in the

reenactment.]

MR. MEE. Yeah. Well, let's put it this way: What they did

wasn't realistic. The bottom line is that the [nose] shadow

should have shifted when the head tilted. I mean, with the head

tilted like that, you wouldn't have a drastic change, but you'd

get enough movement that you could easily spot the difference.

There's just no way that shadow should look like that.

MTG. Okay. Let's see. . . . Let me see if I can find it

here. Okay, here it is. What I have here is a picture. . . .

[Side two of the third tape runs out. The portion follows is

reconstructed from notes taken by MTG. MTG showed Mr. Mee the

notes at the conclusion of the interview, and Mr. Mee said

they accurately reflected what he had said.]

MTG. I'd like to show you a picture from Gerald Posner's book

CASE CLOSED. The picture shows the grain structure analysis that

was done on the right side of Oswald's face. Would you take a

look at it and tell me what you think?

[MTG shows Mr. Mee the bottom photo on the sixth page of pictures

in Posner's book. Mr. Mee studies it for about a minute.]

163

MR. MEE. I can see some variation in the grain pattern.

However, I wouldn't form an opinion just from looking at a copy

of a picture of this nature in a book. I would need to study the

originals with a high-powered microscope so that I could see the

grain structure. But, if the forger matched the film, and given

the fact that for the most part there was one standard way

of making film in the 60s, I wouldn't expect to see a big

difference in the grain anyway. If the film was in fact

matched, it would be difficult to reach a definite conclusion

about the grain in terms of the authenticity of the backyard

photos.

MTG. When McCamy recognized that Mr. Scott's photograph was

a fake, he did so because the shadows on the suit didn't match

the shadows on the railing. McCamy explained:

He [Mr. Scott, a fellow panel member] spent 40

hours with an assistant preparing a fake

photograph of a man standing in a backyard. When

he presented the photograph, he mailed it to me, I

pulled it out of the envelope, and as I pulled it

out of the envelope I said it is a fake.

I was rather surprised that it was that easy. As

it turned out, what he had done was to make a

photograph, a 6-foot photograph of a 6-foot man,

and this was placed in the backyard, and it was

photographed.

But there was a thing that caught my eye

instantly; that is, that there were shadows that

were cast by parts of a dark suit. There were

shadows cast by parts of a railing immediately

behind the man.

When the suit was in full sunlight, it exactly

matched the railing. But the shadows on the suit

didn't match the shadows on the railing.

Now, that would not be the way it would have been

if it had been a true photograph.

When I read this, I thought it was strange that this was the same

man who had just gone to such great lengths to dismiss the

implications of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. Yet,

he admitted that he concluded that Mr. Scott's picture was a fake

because some of the shadows didn't match. What is your opinion

on this matter?

MR. MEE. McCamy was saying the same thing about Scott's photo

that others have said about the backyard pictures. He was not

consistent.

Inconsistent shadows in a photo are a clear indication of fakery.

McCamy was absolutely correct in immediately branding Mr. Scott's

picture a fake based on the conflicting shadows, because we

only have one sun. The shadow conflicts in the backyard

164

photographs are at least, if not more, serious and telling. The

head and the body were not photographed in the same sunlight.

They were taken at two different times of the day.

MTG. What do you think of the argument that a good forger would

have done his pasting in a different part of the body, such as

in the stomach or in the chest?

MR. MEE. For one thing, in order to attach an upper body onto

someone else's lower body in the stomach or chest area, you would

have to match the shirt widths exactly. You would need to

maintain consistency in any wrinkles or folds that came up to the

joining point. You would have to ensure that the two persons'

builds and figures were compatible. Also, the larger the object

that your attaching, the harder it will be to hide the pasting.

There is also the matter of the figure's pose. In order to

attach Oswald's upper body onto a lower body, the forgers would

have needed a picture of Oswald with his arms and hands in the

necessary positions. They would have needed photos of him

with his hands held in such a way that the rifle and the

newspapers could have been inserted into them.

Doing the pasting at the abdomen or lower would also present

problems. The builds and figures would again have to be

compatible. And you would be increasing the size of the

object to be attached, thus making it even harder to hide

the pasting.

The chin area would be a logical place to do the joining, for

a number of reasons. Most people have a natural cleft or

indentation of some form in the chin, beneath the lower lip, and

I notice that the line across Oswald's chin runs through this

area. In joining only about 4/5 of a head onto a chin, the

object to be attached would be small, much smaller than part or

all of a man's upper body.

The neck would be another place where the pasting could be done.

The object to be attached would still be relatively small, at

least when compared to an upper body. But, you would need to

have necks that were identical in size and shape.

MTG. Finally, what would you say in summary about the backyard

photographs?

MR. MEE. I am convinced they are fake. They show impossible

shadows. The shadow conflicts are serious and telling. There is

no way the backyard photos could have identical, or even nearly

identical, backgrounds if they were taken in the manner described

by Marina Oswald. The figure's chin is not Oswald's chin. This

is readily apparent. Even if we were to accept the claim that

the line across the chin was caused by a water spot, that would

not change the fact that the chin itself is noticeably different

from Oswald's chin. The neck bulge and the post indentation are

further indications of tampering.

MTG. I would like to thank you for coming here tonight and for

165

taking so much of your time to answer my questions.

MR. MEE. You're quite welcome, and it was my pleasure.

166

APPENDIX B

JIM GARRISON'S RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 19, 1967, NBC "WHITE PAPER" DOCUMENTARY

ON HIS INVESTIGATION

On July 15, 1967, Garrison was granted thirty minutes of national television

time to respond to an NBC documentary which was highly critical of his

investigation. Here is his complete address to the nation in which he

outlined his allegations:

ANNOUNCER:

The following time period has been made available to District Attorney Jim

Garrison of New Orleans to reply to an NBC news program broadcast on June 19.

[1967] In that program NBC News examined some of the methods used by Mr.

Garrison in his investigation of what he charges was a conspiracy to

assassinate President Kennedy. Except for the opening and closing

announcements, this program has been prepared under Mr. Garrison's sole

supervision. Mr. Garrison.

JIM GARRISON:

Tonight I am going to talk to you about truths and about fairy tales; about

justice and about injustice.

In the months to follow you are going to learn that many of the things which

some of the major news agencies have been telling you are untrue.

You are going to learn that although you are citizens of the United States,

information concerning the cause of the death of your President has been

withheld from you.

In the months to come you will learn to your own satisfaction that President

Kennedy was not killed by a lone assassin. You will learn that there has

been and continues to be a concerted effort to keep you from learning these

facts. And you will learn, I assure you, that what I have been trying to

tell you and what I am telling you tonight is true.

As children we become accustomed to hearing fairy tales. They are always

pleasant stories and they are comforting to hear because good always triumphs

over evil. At least this is the way it is in fairy tales.

Fairy tales are not dangerous for our children and are probably even good for

them up to a point. However, in the real world in which you and I must live,

fairy tales are dangerous. They are dangerous because they are untrue.

Anything which is untrue is dangerous.

And it is all the more dangerous when a fairy tale becomes accepted as

reality simply because it has an official seal of approval, or because

honorable men announce that you must believe it or because powerful elements

of the press tell you that the fairy tale is true.

The conclusion of the Warren Report, that President Kennedy was killed by a

lone assassin, is a fairy tale. This does not mean that the men on the

Warren Commission were aware at the time, that their conclusion was totally

untrue, nor does it mean necessarily that these men had any sinister motives.

167

It does mean that the conclusion that no conspiracy existed, and that Lee

Oswald was the lone assassin is a fiction, and a myth, and that it should be

brought to an end.

The people of this country don't have to be protected from the truth. This

country was not built on the idea that a handful of nobles, whether located

in our Federal agencies in Washington D.C., or in the news agencies in New

York should decide what was good for the people to know, and what they should

not know. This is a totalitarian concept which presumes that the leaders of

our Federal government and the men in control of the powerful press media

constitute a special elite which by virtue of their nobility and their

brilliance, empower them to think for the people. Personally, I would rather

put my confidence in the common sense of the people of this country.

The truth about the assassination of the President has been concealed from

you long enough. Those forces which are fighting so hard today to tell you

that they have examined the Warren Report and that everything is fine, and

that our investigation has uncovered nothing, are not merely going to lose

this fight--they have already lost it.

Now let me tell you why President Kennedy was murdered, and how he was

murdered. I also want to give you a few examples which will show you how the

conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is totally impossible.

President Kennedy was assassinated by men who sought to obtain a radical

change in our foreign policy--particularly with regard to Cuba. You recall

that under President Kennedy the Cold War began to thaw and there were new

signs of an effort on the part of the Soviet Union and ourselves to

understand each other.

On the map, this [Cuba] appears to be merely a large island off the coast of

Florida. But for many men it meant a good deal more than this. In 1963 a

great variety of interests existed, which not only desired an American

supported invasion of Castro's Cuba, but took it for granted that it was

inevitable.

In the minds of many men, this island represented a tremendous emotional

landmark, because they had steered their courses toward it for so long, and

with such intensity.

In the fall of 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. It was followed by a

pronounced new attitude towards Cuba on the part of the United States. Cuba,

after this was no longer regarded as an enemy and was no longer regarded as

fair game for those men who for one reason or another focused their attention

on this island. The new signs of understanding between Russia and the United

States continued to develop.

In June of 1963, President Kennedy, addressing students at the American

University in Washington told them, "we breathe the same air" as the

Russians. He said we should try to live together in peace on this Earth.

Well at this point some individuals transferred their hostile attention from

Fidel Castro to John F. Kennedy. They planned the President's assassination,

and they planned it well.

The evidence indicates that he [President Kennedy] was shot at from two

different directions in the rear and also from the right front.

168

We know that shooting was coming from two separate directions in the rear

because the President and Governor [John] Connally were hit in the back

within a split second of each other--and this necessarily had to happen with

two bullets coming from two different rifles.

We know that the President was being shot at from the grassy knoll area on

the right front because most of the people in Dealey Plaza heard the shots

coming from there--and because at least one of the President's wounds was an

entry wound from the front, and because men were seen running from the grassy

knoll area immediately afterwards.

That's why the idea of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of the

President is a fairy tale and should be brought to an end. If you--the

people of the United States--will learn the truth; that the President was

assassinated by men who were once connected with the Central Intelligence

Agency, of course, this might reflect on the dignity of the CIA.

But I happen to believe that our form of government is strong enough to

survive the truth. I believe that you are entitled to the truth about how

your President was shot down in the streets and how it was done. Instead,

some of the most powerful news agencies we have in our country have worked

hard to convince you that everything is all right.

They do not tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints were not found on

the gun which was supposed to have killed the President. And they do not

tell you that nitrate tests exonerated Lee Oswald from the actual shooting by

showing that he had not fired a rifle that day. And they do not tell you

that it was virtually impossible for Oswald to have taken his fingerprints

off the gun, hidden the gun, and gone down four flights of stairs by the time

he was seen on the second floor.

Above all, they do not tell you of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony that

shots were coming from behind the stone wall on the grassy knoll. In a

choice between official dignity and the truth, dignity was given priority and

so you have not received the full truth.

This is why there continues to be hundreds of documents still hidden from

your eyes and classified as secret, and some of them bear such titles as,

"Lee Harvey Oswald's accessibility to information about the U-2"; the Central

Intelligence Agency's dossier on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the CIA file on Jack

Ruby. You have not been told that Lee Oswald was in the employ of United

States intelligence agencies. But this was the case, and so I am telling

you.

Why this young uneducated man had learned to speak Russian even before he

left the Marines, and there's only one way he could have learned that. Oswald

had a higher security rating than his buddies in his Marine unit.

During 12 hours of questioning, to give you another example--12 hours of

questioning after the assassination--there is no transcript of Oswald's

statements available for you to look at.

Now, it doesn't matter where you live, if somebody in your town steals a 1928

Hupmobile, what he says is written down when he is questioned. However, when

the man who has [supposed to have] just killed the President of the United

States is questioned for 12 hours, no transcript is available. There's

nothing for you to look at.

169

And believe it or not, one of the explanations given is that the room was too

small to include a stenographer.

And here's something else--this case has more accidental fires, more burning

of paper than any murder case in history.

For example, when Oswald was questioned by a federal agent in August of 1963,

the notes of the interview were later burned. You cannot see the notes made

by Commander Humes concerning the President's autopsy because he burned them

too. One of the questioners of Lee Harvey Oswald during the 12-hour session

burned his notes.

And similarly, when the Warren Commission contacted the State Department and

said, with regard to Exhibit 948, "We notice that a one-page message from the

CIA containing secret information is supposed to be attached to this file and

it's missing. Would you please furnish us with a copy of this missing secret

document?" The answer given to the Warren Commission was that the secret

message about Oswald from the CIA was accidentally destroyed while being

thermofaxed.

This spontaneous combustion, incidentally, occurred the day after the

President's assassination.

I am not even going to bother to dignify the foolishness which NEWSWEEK and

NBC and some of the other news agencies have tried to make you believe about

my office. I've been District Attorney of New Orleans for more than five

years and we have never had a single case reversed because of improper

methods on the part of our staff. Nor do we rush to judgment on half-baked

evidence. And the proof of that is the fact that in more than five years not

one defendant has walked out of the courtroom in a murder case with an

acquittal. Nor have we lost a major case in five years.

Then what is their game? Their game is to fool you. These people want the

investigation stopped. They don't want a trial at all. Please believe me.

They don't think we're wrong in our investigation. Obviously, if our

investigation was as haywire as they would like to have you think, then you

would not see such a coordinated barrage coming from the news centers in the

east. Why are they so concerned? Why is it that they cannot wait until the

trial comes in order to learn what the facts are? Why are they so anxious to

have their own trials?

They know very well that the witnesses they're presenting to you have not

been testifying under oath; that they're not being cross-examined as they

would be at a trial. And that the opportunities for a timely rebuttal by the

State of Louisiana which would exist at a trial have not been provided in

their untrue presentations. They know this. In my considered judgment there

has been an effort to prejudice in advance the potential jurors in the trial

of this case. As a matter of fact, the National Broadcasting Company has

already had the trial. The defendant was found innocent, and the District

Attorney was convicted.

They announced across the nation that my methods were improper. But as their

stories, one by one, turn out to be false, they do not reveal this to you--

but simply search hopefully into new areas. For example, NEWSWEEK magazine

had a feature article saying that my office attempted to bribe a man named

170

Beauboeuf. It later turned out that his story and their article was totally

untrue and the tapes which NEWSWEEK described had been altered.

The police investigators in my office were found innocent of any wrongdoing

in a serious investigation conducted by the police department. However,

NEWSWEEK has made virtually no mention of that.

Similarly, in its recent effort to make you think that my methods are

improper, NBC announced coast to coast that it had located the real Clay

Bertrand; that an NBC man had talked to him. This made every newspaper in

the country and it inferred once again that in addition to using terrible

methods we were off on a wild goose chase. Now when it turned out that this

was a total fabrication, and the man whom NBC identified as the real Clay

Bertrand hotly denied ever using the name, there was only coast to coast

silence on NBC.

NBC presented a professional burglar, whom my office had just recently

convicted, and allowed him to make a plainly false presentation that we had

tried to get him to climb into the defendant's apartment and plant evidence

there. The inference, of course, was that this particular defendant was too

lofty a character to participate in my nefarious schemes.

However, recently, when we called him before the New Orleans Grand Jury so

that he could tell all about our new venture into the burglary business, he

took the Fifth Amendment when asked if his statement on NBC was true. Once

again, this was followed by a loud silence from coast to coast on NBC.

As a matter of fact, the Warren Commission's inquiry into the

assassination started off with a completely unacceptable philosophy for a

democracy like ours. One of its stated objectives was to calm the fears of

the people about a conspiracy. But in our country, the government has no

right to calm our fears any more than it has, for example, the right to

excite our fears about Red China or about fluoridation or about birth

control, or about anything. There is no room in America for thought control

of any kind, no matter how benevolent the objective.

Personally, I don't want to be calm about the assassination of John F.

Kennedy. I don't want to be calm about a President of my country being shot

down in the streets. And I don't want to be calm about the fact that for

reasons of public policy or national security or any other phony reason, the

true facts have been withheld from the people of this country.

If the day has come when it is possible to shoot our President down because

some men disagree with his foreign policy--and the day has come that the

moment his heart stops beating other considerations take over which conceal

the total truth from the citizens of the United States, then the day has come

when we have ceased to be a democracy.

I cannot believe that this is so, that the time has come in America when the

people no longer control their country.

Yet I must confess that I am appalled by the readiness with which some of the

major press media have accepted the great fairy tale without hesitation--

rousing from their stupor only when they have learned that a District

Attorney was violating all the rules of etiquette and digging up the truth.

171

They are telling you that black is white when they tell you there is no

evidence of a conspiracy. They have to know well the significance of the

continued concealment of X-rays and autopsy pictures which if revealed to you

would show that the President was hit by rifle fire from more than one

direction.

And they have to know well of the hundreds of documents which remain

classified, secret, and concealed from your view.

And they are making white black when they repeatedly state that my office has

used improper methods. They have to know that no D.A.'s office in the United

States would dream of operating in the way they suggest. They have to know

that for years I have been a strong defender of the rights of individuals.

They have to know all of this, but they have lent themselves to the all-out

effort to convince you that the matter has been looked into and anyone who

raises a question now is irresponsible or a troublemaker or an enemy of the

people.

What's that? You say that you are an American citizen and you want to see

the autopsy X-rays and you want to see these hundreds of documents that have

been withheld from your view and you want to know why these vital notes

always ended up being burned?

What's the matter with you? Can't you take the word of these honorable men,

who have looked into it for you?

Let me just give you one example that shows you how impossible the single

assassination theory is--which shows you the enormity of the fairy tale which

you are supposed to believe in.

Now this is the Warren Commission's own diagram of the route of the bullet

through Governor Connally.

[At this point in his presentation, Garrison displayed a diagram (CE 689)

that presented the Warren Commission's version of the path of the "magic

bullet."]

The bullet had to take this route in order to cause the injuries which he

received. Now the important thing to keep in mind is that the Warren

Commission itself concedes that if this same bullet was not the one which

also went through President Kennedy, then there had to be someone else

firing. And the reason for that, just to put it very simply, is that the

Zapruder film has shown that all the firing occurred in six seconds, and yet

there were a total of eight wounds. Therefore this one bullet has to cause

seven wounds, because one missed and one was the fatal shot hitting the

President. So by the Warren Commission's own admission, prior to hitting the

Governor, this bullet had to go through President Kennedy who is sitting back

here. Now you'll notice that the Warren Commission did not attempt to

include President Kennedy in the diagram--they could not because of the total

impossibility of this bullet having gone through the President also would be

too obvious. In other words, by the evidence of the Warren Commission

itself, it is obvious that there was other shooting going on in Dealey Plaza.

Consequently, the Warren Commission has officially concluded that before this

bullet came down from the sky as it had to, to hit Governor Connally in all

172

those different places, it entered President Kennedy's body from the rear and

came out of his neck.

I might add that the Warren Commission did not try to include the President's

picture because that would have shown that the course of the magic bullet

would have had to have gone up in the air and come down again in order to end

up hitting the Governor

It is by selecting these little portions of each incident and by excluding

other portions that the fairy tale is presented to you. However, if they had

to show in one diagram the bullet entering the president and then continuing

through Governor Connally, you would be able to see the total impossibility

of this bullet causing seven wounds.

[This next section was in Garrison's script, but he skipped over it and it

was not broadcast. At the time, Garrison handed out copies of his statement

to the press. This portion was included in Garrison's handout, but he did

not state the words in the next two paragraphs over the air, although he

intended to.]

And now, let's take a look at the magic bullet itself: [Exhibit 399]. This is

the magic bullet which is supposed to have caused these wounds, without

having its shape altered in any way or without even getting dirty. This

bullet, which was found at Parkland Hospital, lying on the floor, went

through President Kennedy's back and out of his neck, through Governor

Connally's back and out of his chest, into the governor's wrist and out of

his wrist and into the governor's leg.

[Garrison had a display with a photo of the "magic bullet."]

Don't ask me to explain to you how it was possible for this to have occurred.

They can't really explain it either. But you have to believe it because if

this untarnished bullet did not accomplish all this by itself, then it means

that someone else had to be shooting at the President and, of course, this

would conflict with the official version of the assassination.

[End of scripted, but unspoken portion of Garrison's presentation]

Now, this is just one of many examples which show that the Warren

Commission's conclusion is completely impossible. Bullet 399 is another

example, the fact that the cartridges in the Tippit case do not match at all

the bullets in Tippit's body--one after the other--if I had the total hour to

reply which NBC used to try and discredit my office I would be able to go

into more matters. But let's sum it up by saying that it is completely

impossible to uphold the single assassin theory, if you look at it seriously.

Anyone who has done their homework knows that the single assassin theory is

totally impossible.

In the final analysis what has been done by the Warren Commission in its

investigation, is to take this series of implausibilities and to attempt to

prove to you that each one of them is at least mathematically possible. Each

one of them is mathematically possible, but not probable. However, it is not

mathematically possible for all of these series of implausibilities to have

occurred, and this is what they ask you to believe.

173

It's very much like telling you that it is mathematically possible, for

example, for an elephant to hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy.

Of course, this is implausible.

But what do they do? They produce an expert who says, "Yes I have made a

study of the situation, and this is not a full-grown elephant, and this is a

particularly tough kind of daisy. And, therefore, it was mathematically

possible."

Now the official truth, as a result of such expert testimony--as a result of

the creation of a series of mathematical possibilities is now no longer what

actually happened in Dallas, but what has been officially approved.

Well, I say that the matter is not closed--not in this country. I say that

the day has not yet arrived when the only reality is power and the ideals on

which our country was built are merely words printed on paper.

I believe that those news agencies which have sought to imply that I would

use improper methods to gain some sort of fictional political advantage have

simply revealed their own cynicism. I believe that in this conflict between

truth and power--and this is exactly what it is all about--that power cannot

possibly smash truth out of existence. The people in this country will not

let that happen.

If we still live in the same country in which we were born, and I don't think

it's changed that much; if this is still the country in which, in the words

of our Pledge of Allegiance, there exists, "liberty and justice for all,"

then this attempt to conceal the full truth from you, in the end, has to be a

failure.

In this case I have learned more about the human race than I really wanted to

know. And I've learned more about some of our government agencies than I

really wanted to know. And I've learned more about some of our press

agencies than I cared to know. But I am still naive enough to believe that

in America the people make the decisions, not a handful of men in the

Washington and New York areas.

And I believe that the people of America want to know the entire truth about

how their President was shot down in the streets of Dallas.

And I want to assure you, that as long as I am alive, no one is going to stop

me from seeing that you obtain the full truth, and nothing less than the full

truth--and no fairy tales.

ANNOUNCER:

Time for the preceding program was made available to District Attorney Jim

Garrison of New Orleans. The program was prepared under his sole

supervision. It constitutes his reply to an earlier NBC News program

examining some of the methods Mr. Garrison has used in his investigation of

the assassination of President Kennedy.

This program originated in the studios of WDSU-TV in New Orleans.