JFK Lancer Productions & Publications

Table of Contents:

Features Research Articles

4....Letters to the Chronicles

5....Behind the Lines: George Michael Evica

8....Updates & Bulletins:

16....Passages:

  • Melvin Belli, Jack Ruby Attorney
  • Charles Brehme, Dealey Plaza Witness
  • McGeorge Bundy, Advisor to Presidents
  • Larry Ray Harris, Assassination Researcher
  • Harold Tinker, JFK's Teacher at Choate School
  • Ralph Yarborough, Secret Serviceman

24....Library Patrons

26....November In Dallas Conference Update

37...In The News

Members of Our Community Spotlighted:

  • Gordon Winslow
  • Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko

46....Clippings:

  • Judge Sues Over CIA Mystery Man
  • Agency Spared From Disclosing
  • Ex-CIA Agent Interview Declassified
  • The CIA, Contras, and Drugs

6...Pieces of the Jigsaw: Glimpses of the Real Lee Harvey Oswald

Martin Shackelford

10...Speaking Out: Odio, LaFontaines, and Oswald

  • A Conversation With Gaeton Fonzi, Part Two:
    Steve Bochan, with Gordon Winslow
  • Elrod Talked And It's About Time: Raymond Carroll

19...The Strange Allegations of Raymond Carnay

Chris Courtwright

29...ARRB Update: The Board In Los Angeles

A Photo Essay by Clint Bradford

Statements from:

  • Marina Oswald Porter (follow link above)
  • David Lifton (follow link above)
  • Robert Tannenbaum

41...The New Improved Limousine Ride: Pro and Con

John Balantyne and John Kelin

42...Our Guest Speaker: Charles Drago

Santayana Gets The Last Laugh -- Again

This issue is available for $8.00 by e-mail at

Tom at JFKLancer

OUR COMPLIMENTARY ARTICLES

JFK Assassination Records Review Board heard from the following witnesses at the board's public hearing on September 17, 1996 in Los Angeles:

Statement of David S. Lifton To ARRB, 9/17/96

Chairman Tunnheim, Members of the Review board, I want to thank you for asking me to testify here today. From everything I've observed, the review board is doing excellent work in getting classified documents released to the extent allowed by law. In addition, although I know you are not chartered by Congress to re- investigate the Kennedy assassination, I suspect that when you close shop, the record will show that you have taken the most significant steps possible to clarify the record 33 years after the event..

Although transcripts have not been released, the fact that you have deposed the three autopsy doctors, and the autopsy photographer constitutes a significant milestone and indicates your seriousness of purpose: attempting to answer unanswered questions while there's still an opportunity to do so.

On a personal level, let me provide an example of what this law has meant to me---and would mean to any future researcher or historian who wants to discuss the planning of the Dallas trip, and particularly, how the motorcade route was selected.

Jerry Bruno, who worked closely with JFK, was the political advance man for the Dallas trip. The Warren Commission never interviewed him. (Not only didn't they interview him---they didn't appear to know who he was. I have seen one memo in which one Warren Commission attorney said he'd heard there was a "Bruno" connected with the planning the trip; and maybe they should look into that. They never did.)

Bruno's role was first discussed in the William Manchester book, Death of a President. In 1971, Bruno published a book, Advance Man, with Jeff Geenfield (who we regularly see on ABC evening news)---a book in which he spelled out in detail the argument between himself and Governor Connally and other political players in Texas over the Dallas luncheon site, which in turn determined the motorcade route.

In 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was created. I went to Washington DC. spoke with Belford Lawson, the staff attorney in charge of that area. He too, had never heard of Bruno, and was unaware of the fact that Bruno had written a book. I told him who Bruno was and why he must be called.

The document Belford Lawson wrote summarizing my meeting with him is now available. In 1978, Bruno was deposed by the HSCA; but when the HSCA report was released in 1979, the transcript of his testimony was not included in the published documents. In fact, it had been placed under seal for 50 years---which meant it would be available until 2028---28 years past the millennium.

Now, in 1994, as a result of the JFK act, that transcript is available. And it is immensely important.

I'd like you to understand what this law has meant to me, in terms of my own time scale. I was 31 years old when I read Bruno's book, 36 years old when I met with HSCA and said: "Call Bruno. You must call Bruno"; 38 years when he was deposed in a closed door session; 40 years old when the HSCA report was released, and I found, to my chagrin, that the Bruno testimony was locked up for 50 years.

And then, two years ago, when I was 54, and because of this law, I was finally able to read Bruno's sworn testimony, for which I believe I was somewhat responsible.

Future generation will not have to go through that process---pursuing an assassination record for the better part of a lifetime--and I commend the Congress for passing this law, and the review board for doing their level best to implement it. [And yes, I intend to follow a good diet and get exercise to live long and so be able to see those documents that get past the Review Board.]

My main reason for appearing here to today is to discuss my imminent transfer to the ARRB of my earliest and most significant interviews of Parkland and Bethesda medical witnesses, an important part of the data base for my book BEST EVIDENCE

I'm not here to propound or defend any theories; but rather, to lay the groundwork for making available to future generations of researchers substantial portions of the data upon which I relied.

When I interviewed these doctors and other witnesses starting in 1966, I asked questions no one had thought to ask before. For example: What was the length of the tracheotomy incision made in Dallas?

The value of these accounts are that these are the earliest answers on record to these new and significant questions.

Jumping ahead to 1982: when I had obtained the autopsy photographs made available, via an intermediary, by retired SS agent James Fox--I brought these photographs to Dallas and was the first person to show several of the Dallas medical staff the pictures, basically asking: "Is this what you saw?"

The Commission never did that, nor did the House Select Committee thirteen years later, in their investigation. None of the Dallas doctors were shown autopsy photographs by any official investigative body.

My 1982 and 1983 interviews in which I did exactly that are on the list of what I am donating. (In addition to the imminent transfer of my audio tape interviews which I have already agreed to with Mr. Samoluk, I am also am willing to provide transcripts of my 1989 and 1990 filmed interviews of several of these same doctors, if desired.)

Turning now to the report of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy---James Sibert and Frances O'Neill. I interviewed Sibert in early November 1966, questioning him about the statement in his report in which he quotes the head pathologist at the Bethesda autopsy as saying that it was "apparent" when the body was put on the table that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." Sibert said the statement was true, I tape recorded the conversation; and I am donating a reference copy of that tape to the ARRB for transfer to the JFK Records Collection.

(For those concerned with the taping of telephone conversations, this was 30 years ago; when the laws were quite different. In any event, all statutes have run; and, I might add that I only tape record the FBI in cases of national security). I interviewed Commanders Humes, the lead autopsy pathologist, on November 2, 1966 and November 3, 1966---just days after he had been shown the Kennedy autopsy photographs for the first time. I also questioned him about the surgery statement in the Sibert and O'Neill report. Substantial portions of those conversations are printed in my book. I am donating high quality reference copies to the ARRB for transfer to the JFK Records Collection.

In 1967, I interviewed Godfrey McHugh, Kennedy's air force aide, who attended the autopsy. In attempting to develop a chain of possession on the President's body---something the Warren Commission failed to do---I interviewed the members of the military casket team who transported the Dallas coffin from Andrews Air Force Base to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

These include General Philip C. Wehle, the Commander of the Military District of Washington, as well as all the members of the team which met Air Force One upon its arrival from Dallas--the same squad, as it turned out, who escorted the body to graveside on Monday, November 25.

The members of the casket team include: Hubert Clark, the young sailor from NYC James Leroy Felder, the Army Sgt. from South Carolina Timothy Cheek, from the Marines, from Ocala Florida Coastguardsman George Barnum, from Lake City, Minn Army Special 4th Class Douglas Mayfield, from San Diego

I even interviewed Lt. Bird, the army captain whose memory was largely lost, by 1967, when he took a bullet in the head in Vietnam, and who I was able to speak with when a nurse brought a telephone to his bedside at the hospital where he was recuperating from his near fatal heads wounds. What hospital? John F. Kennedy Hospital in Memphis Tennessee.

None of these men were interviewed by the Warren Commission. Moreover, I am also contributing my copy of Coastguardsman George Barnum's written report, made in December 1963---an account which has many valuable details, and one that was written because a relative of his, who had a connection with the Lincoln Assassination, told young George: "Write everything down. It may be important someday." Well, it is.

Finally, I have brought with me today a very special copy of the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination. As everyone knows the original was an 8mm positive. Copies of the film were immediately made for the FBI and the Secret Service; and within days, Zapruder sold the original to Time-Life. Although it was reported at the time that he obtained $25,000 for his film, in fact the contract---which I provided ARRB---shows he was paid $150,000 (that would be about half a million dollars today). The payments were made in a series of 6 $25,000 payments that occurred shortly after the first of each year, through 1968.

Despite the substantial price paid for the film, it was not exploited by Time-Life as a motion picture film; i.e., it was never shown on TV or sold in any documentary form as a moving picture. No newsreels, no TV specials. Nothing. Yet one of the most controversial aspects of the film---one never addressed by the Warren Commission---was the violent backward motion of the head depicted on the frames following the fatal shot.

What this means has been debated back and forth over the years. Passions run high on both sides. For reasons I will never understand, the Warren Commission failed to address this issue. In other words, if we are to believe the record, the Warren Commission apparently didn't notice the very thing which has fueled the assassination debate for three decades. (And of course, the public didn't even know it was an issue because Time-Life chose not to show it as a motion picture film, after paying $150,000 for those exclusive rights.)

The film is important for another reason. Because Zapruder was filming through a telephoto lens, some of the frames show the wounds, and so the film constitutes an unusual photographic record of the President's wounds.

In order to do any work with the Zapruder film---whether about the wounds, or about the motions shown, the velocity of the car, etc.--- the clearest possible copy is required. In commercial production applications, a device known as an optical printer is normally used to copy motion picture film, frame by frame, particularly if blowups are to be made. But optical printers are not designed to accept home movies, which are in 8mm format.

In 1967, Life sent the film to Manhattan Effects, later called EFX, a New York City film lab, where film technician Moe Weitzman designed a device permitting a high quality fully commercial optical printer to accept an 8mm home movie film. Then, in one fell swoop, he enlarged the Zapruder film from 8mm to 35mm format---the kind used in standard motion picture work.

The result is stunning, as anyone knows who has seen the movie JFK or who has purchased a laser disk copy of the film. One reason for the clarity was that Weitzman used a liquid gate, or a wet gate---which permits a liquid of the same index of refraction as the emulsion of the film to come in contact with the frame, when it is imaged. The result is that scratches are eliminated or greatly reduced on the copy.

The very best very of these 35 mm negatives and interpositives were given to the customer, Time-Life; and I would hope the Review Board would attempt to locate these with all the resources you have available to you. They are a priceless record of our history. But, with regard to the 35mm negatives known as technician copies which Weitzman kept in his lab---these he gave to another researcher---and they remain, as they have always been, completely unavailable to the research community.

But in 1990, before that transfer took place, I had the opportunity to work with one of these 35mm negatives---the best of the lot, I'm told---one which had been loaned to the producer of the TV show NOVA, by Weitzman.

First, I supervised making high quality timed liquid gate contact interpositives; Then, using funds provided by several researchers, I rented the services of an optical lab in New York City. And for about a week, I worked at the optical printer, taking the next step that would be necessary by any archivist in order to preserve that record and create a progenitor for all future 35mm prints: operating the printer myself, I also made high quality liquid gate interpositives from the 35mm negative. Then, I made interpositive blowup sequences directly from that same 35mm internegative---some focusing on Kennedy, some on Connally, some on the two Secret Service agents in the front.

I'm holding here one of those 35mm inter-positives---a timed liquid gate contact interpositive--- which I am today donating to the ARRB for placement in the JFK Records Collection. From this archival item---this 35mm interpositive---it should be possible to make negative/positive pairs; that is, this 35mm interpositive can be the progenitor of many 35mm internegatives, and they, in turn, can be used to create 35mm positives, whether they be slides or motion picture film. Although I defer to Moe Weitzman, you call this item the Lifton interpositive made from the Weitzman internegative.

[I cannot overemphasize the high quality of the original Weitzman internegative. One researcher who has worked in this area tells me that although he has bought rights for the film from the Zapruder family, when it comes to using actual pictures for his book---the negative from this interpositive produce images that are clearer than he can obtain from the corresponding source item at the national archives.]

It does not surprise me that this is the case, because Weitzman is a fine technical person, and the Internegative he made in 1967 is certainly equal---and probably better---than anything made by Life for the FBI or Secret Service back in 1963 and 1964.

With regard to this item, I am donating this negative to the ARRB without any copyright claim whatsoever.

This copy has one limitation---the left hand 20%---the images between the sprocket holes---is not visible, precisely because it was copied on a standard optical printer.

Which brings me to my final point: I would like to ask the Zapruder family (i.e., LMH company) to donate the original Zapruder film to the JFK Collection in the National Archives. As mentioned before, they were paid $150,000 from 1963 through 1968. (Plus the contract indicates additional moneys from foreign and other sales). Then, about 1975, Life sold the film back to Zapruder for $1. Then, the process started again. Tens of thousands of dollars have been flowing to the Zapruder family every time a significant Kennedy assassination anniversary rolls around; every time any producer or network or broadcast entity wants to do a film on this subject.

To the Zapruder family, I say: When is enough, enough? I have been in too many situations where people---serious researchers or producers---could not use this film because they could not afford it. I myself could not use the Zapruder film in the Best Evidence Research video---a serious video dealing with issues pertaining to the autopsy, and distributed nationally by MCA---because of the extraordinary $1/cassette charge that Henry Zapruder, Abe's son, told me "sounded about right" for a royalty. And so we used a diagram instead.

And so I say to the Zapruder family: Donate this film to the National Archives. Not a copy, but the original. It is the Rossetta Stone for this case. And the issue now is authenticity. If the film has not been tampered with, then it is an accurate record of the wounds and is a time clock of the assassination. However, and more importantly, if the film has been tampered with in some way as many have alleged, then that matter must be investigated in the future---it represents an assassination record that has to be clarified---and that cannot be done properly by examining a copy of the film.

This is the week to do it, Mr. Zapruder. Inscribe yourself in the book of life forever. Donate your father's film to the JFK Collection at the National Archives. Remove all copyright constraints. It is the right thing to do.

I'm now handing over a list of audio interviews I intend to be donating to the archives, plus this film.

Again, I want to thank the review board for the work they are doing. I think few people in the public realize the huge number of documents involved, or the complications involved in organizing such a huge data base, and clearing it for release.

Thank you.

LIST OF INTERVIEWS:

MEDICAL

DALLAS:

BETHESDA

CHAIN OF POSSESSION

A Statement to the Assassination Records Review Board

from Marina Oswald Porter, September 17, 1996

On April 19, 1996, I sent a letter to Mr. John Tunheim, chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board. I requested certain documents listed in the letter. I received a letter from Mr. Thomas Samoluk, public relations director, in which he more or less politely brushes me off. He describes the opinion of the FBI, how they stand on the matter, which is nothing new to me. I took it as a refusal. The letter did not indicate who they talked to at the FBI, the reasons for the refusal, if the documents exist or never existed, if they are destroyed and if so, why. I want to know the answer.

On May 15, 1996, the ARRB sent me a description of what powers they have under the law. My assumption is that taxpayers are paying them, that they have power of subpoena for any record related to the assassination of President Kennedy. In my opinion, the records I requested from them are assassination related. They imply Lee Oswald's involvement with the FBI. Until we see these records, we can only speculate. Beyond the release of these documents, the ARRB should subpoena FBI employees who have seen records on Lee Oswald and of a specific warning of an assassination attempt against President Kennedy in Dallas, and grant these FBI employees immunity from confidentiality agreements that we now know they signed. These persons should be allowed and encouraged to tell everything they know.

When I came to this country I came as a friend. I was then and am now. When the assassination happened I believed it was my obligation--anybody's obligation--to abide by the law of this land.

I testified to the Warren Commission and I obliged any request the government made of me. I agreed with the findings of the Warren Commission not because I really understood everything about it, but because I had enough trust that they investigated honestly and that the conclusions they came to were based on the highest form of investigation. So, with my blind faith, I accepted their conclusions. Of course, at that time lots of people in this country who knew more about what was going on questioned the findings of the commission. And I defended the commission against those people, and I wanted all those so-called conspiracy people to just go away. Then there was a second investigation because the people demanded it. This was the investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee. And I testified for them. And their conclusion was possible conspiracy, meaning that the assassination involved more than one person, and they stopped it at that. Even then, I wasn't very pleased. I wasn't very pleased because when I was testifying for them and I thought they were honest--after so many years, and because the people demanded it--I asked them questions that would be answered just for me, and I was told that I was there only to answer questions, not to ask them. So I knew that that investigation was doomed.

And how can I respect the conclusions of the House Select Committee, when they locked up their records?

I gave the two investigations everything I had. Then later I found out that the FBI knew more about me than I knew about myself. Literally, even my underwear was investigated. And I have no problem--they didn't have to trust me, why should they? I don't hold anything against that. But my private matters were investigated--even when they had all the proof that I was nobody's "spy"--and I feel that this was FOR BLACKMAIL--my house was bugged, and I saw pictures of me which I knew nobody but the FBI could have done. I've seen with my own eyes that any kind of gossip from people even remotely related to me by name in Russia--any kind of nonsense--is in the record. You cannot be more thorough than that. And even so, I don't object. But now I think, it's my turn to ask the questions and for the FBI to clean their own laundry. I don't want to know everything about the FBI, but since they claim that I am wife of the assassin, and I have to defend myself , only in that regard am I sticking my nose in their business. And I'm not begging for answers. I think I've earned them, and I think they should give them to me.

After the cold reply to my letter from the Review Board, a woman who said she is with the ARRB left her number for me to call, which I never did. They want the tax records of Lee Harvey Oswald. (The Assassination Records Review Board does not have authority over IRS law). I did not sign the IRS release form the Review Board sent for one simple reason. Because I thought the priority should be the release of the records which I had requested. In my opinion, I think the tax records are irrelevant to the assassination. Mr . Jeremy Gunn of the Review Board called me a week ago and said, "I'm so and so, How come you didn't sign those papers?" And I said, "I have no problem with signing those forms, but I told you, I requested those documents, and this is my priority. So you do this job right now; put your energy over there." And Mr. Gunn said, yes, they did approach the FBI and the FBI is stonewalling, and so we're approaching you and you're not helping us. And I said, "How is that related to what I'm asking?" I have no problem releasing my tax records, and I will agree to have them released to journalists who will publish them. This will eliminate the problem of having them public. But this is not related to my request. There will be no enlightenment there for me. I will not find anything there at all. Then Mr. Gunn said, "Would you be more comfortable if Mr. John Newman talked to you about this?" And I said, "I'm familiar with Mr. Newman, and I have talked with him, but I don't want to talk to him anymore."

The Review Board is going to be closing soon. The time is very limited. They should concentrate their priority on things that can shed some light rather than on things that create more controversy, more stupid books, leading away from the answers instead of giving the answers, it seems to me.

My priority should be considered, not because I'm important, but because I'm the one who has to live with this. It's a very personal agenda in my life.

If the records reveal an FBI informant in the assassination, I want to know the name of that informant. And I don't want to have one dead man's name substituted for another. I absolutely believe that Lee Oswald was the informant on the arrest of Lawrence Miller and Donnell Whitter on November 18, 1963. After the assassination, the puzzle of Lee Oswald did not fit for me. But for Lee to be an informant makes everything logical to me. Specifically, the behavior of Lee Oswald--all that strangeness didn't come from a crazy lunatic. That was his mission, a secretive mission. I would like to be wrong. But if I'm right, I want an apology to me and to the American people.

After twenty-seven years, I consciously made the choice to become an American citizen. Of course, my heritage was never betrayed when I took alliance to the American constitution and tried to pronounce this country as my home, only to find out that thirty-three years later I have nothing but the address. I lived in two systems which were labeled differently. Slowly and surely, the names are different but I feel oppressed, when I have to struggle for every piece of paper. Everytime I have asked for documents, I have been intimidated.

And who gave the media the power to throw insults at me and my children, when they don't have the facts? Lee Oswald's face is on a dart board, comedians make jokes so freely without knowing the facts, that it is embedded in the people's psyches now. And we have the ex-president of the country, Gerald Ford, in front of millions of people calling a man never convicted of the crime, "that looney, that lunatic" with no facts to back it up. I'm listening, and I KNOW. But who's going to believe me? They're going to believe the authorities. So many careers, including media careers, have been made hiding behind dead Lee Harvey Oswald. If those people came forward and told the truth, they would never have those positions for one day. That's my bitter opinion.

It's my turn. Whatever few years are left in my life, I want to live it. I'm tired of bare existence. I want also to say I'm not anti-government, I'm not revolutionary, I'm not communist. I want to believe in the government. That entity should exist to help people but not to abuse them.

Someone can try to restore the confidence of the people in the government. It has to start somewhere. The government are servants of the people, and they should be honorably served. The public trust should not be discarded that easily.

The Review Board has been empowered by the people, and I thought that was the government. Apparently it's not. So we don't have a leadership, we just have a ruling. Why bother with the constitution? We should have stayed a colony of England. I cannot empower that Review Board. I cannot make them not to act dishonestly or cowardly. This is up to their conscience. I want to quote something that I hope will give them a little bit of strength and bravery. It is from the Declaration of Independence:

And for the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our life, our fortune, and our sacred honor.

I am sure that most Americans feel that way. I think the same thing is expected from the government. Patriotism should not be used for the gains of only a few. That is when dishonorable things happen.

I definitely think that Lee Oswald did not kill President Kennedy. I think he was given up to pacify people as a patsy. I don't think he was the first one--only the first one we know about. And he wasn't crazy. If he was crazy, how come I have normal intelligent children?

With very good convictions? The thing that bothers me the most. You teach your children the difference between right and wrong, give to the best of your abilities, how wonderful the country is, how honorable it is to live right here, and yet I no longer believe this myself; I'd be lying to you if I say that. And if I don't believe it I cannot tell it to my children or grandchildren. I cannot disappoint them. I have to believe first.

I look at my grandchildren, I look at those eyes and say to myself, what do I have to leave for you? You can leave money, which I don't have, you can leave fortune, but most of all, you can leave to your children a decent society. And I'm not one who thinks that everything should be perfect tomorrow. There will be stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, crime will be there. But the government and ruling bodies are supposed not only to set up the standards for us, but to set an example as well. And then, maybe we'll have some kind of balance in society so goodness can survive.

All documents which can expose that a man was accused wrongly should be opened. I believe that the documents I have requested will be eye-openers. After that, if time is still left, I think a law should be put on the books that if a man is accused of murder, and is dead before a trial is held, that crime should never be closed, and the family should be able to defend itself from accusations.

This case has never been OPENED. The twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission do not support its conclusions. My final conclusion is that the man--Lee--was not on the sixth floor. We're not even sure about the rifle. According to the local police chief, we never could put the rifle and the person (Oswald) together. Lee was charged with the crime. They showed him a picture, said this is a rifle, this is you; he denied it. But they never showed him the weapon for identification. I'm the one who was supposed to identify the rifle, and I did, believing in the authorities' good intentions . But I was the worst of all. I knew nothing of weapons or guns; I knew nothing. Now I have to defend not just my honor but my life as well. It is impossible for me to put my time where it belongs, to be a normal wife and mother.

But I finally know the documentary evidence and I have to demand, not beg, that this information be released. This evidence was itemized in my letter to Mr. Tunheim and the ARRB. Why has this evidence been ignored?

Thank you, and please forgive my English.

Very sincerely,

Marina Oswald Porter

Return to The Chonicles Main Page Submit an article for publication
Check out our on-line catalog

JFK Lancer Main Page