BETWEEN THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE

David Lifton's War Against the Critics of the Warren Commission

by

Roger Bruce Feinman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright 1993 by Roger Bruce Feinman.  All rights reserved.  May be widely distributed in disk, electronic or manuscript form (i.e., unbound computer printout) so long as no fee is charged except the costs of reproduction, postage and handling.  Single quotations in other works limited to 500 contiguous words up to a total of 2000 words.  For longer quotations contact author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course, having written a best selling book (Best Evidence is now with its fourth publisher and has had about 30 printings), and being the producer of a best selling video, I suppose I am a public figure, and criticism comes with the territory . . ." 

						-- David Lifton in a letter to Jacqueline Liebergott, President of Emerson College, December 8, 1992

"We cannot speak of falsehood until there is this awareness of the existence of a reality within oneself and external to oneself."

						-- Marcel Eck, Lies & Truth

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

On April 3, 1993, I appeared in a panel debate on the medical evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination at the Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics in Chicago.  Speaking for the critics of the official medical findings were Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Wallace Milam, David Lifton, and I.  An opposing panel defending the government's case consisted of Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. John K. Lattimer, Dr. Michael West, and Dr. Marc Micozzi.

This direct confrontation between critics and defenders provided a rare opportunity for me to make two points that have been nagging at me for quite some time:  First, after nearly 30 years, we still do not have a full and honest official account of what occurred on the night of November 22, 1963 at the autopsy of Kennedy's remains at Bethesda Naval Hospital, or of how the autopsy pathologists reached their ultimate findings.  Second, in the absence of fact, theories just don't work.

I am neither a well-known critic nor a professional public speaker (perhaps an odd apology coming from a trial attorney, but I find it rather nerve-wracking to prepare for and then face larger audiences), nor do I have any burning desire for celebrity in connection with this case.  I tried to persuade all of my co-panelists on the critics' side beforehand to avoid discussion of theories, to attack the government's case on the narrowest and least vulnerable grounds, and to stick to the evidence.  In all but one case, my persuasion was either unnecessary or successful.  The exception was David Lifton, the author of "Best Evidence".

Mr. Lifton, who spoke before I did at his insistence, reviewed the tape-recorded interview he did with Dr. James J. Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, in 1966.  He apparently wanted to demonstrate that Dr. Humes conceded the possibility that President Kennedy's body had been altered before it was delivered to Bethesda for autopsy.  No one in the audience with whom I later conferred believed the tape anywhere near conclusive of this question; some believed that Dr. Humes was startled at the very suggestion (which was novel and unpublished in 1966), but that Mr. Lifton was reading way too much into Humes' remarks, especially his omission to flatly deny the alteration theory.

Mr. Lifton also propounded a series of rhetorical questions concerned with his theory that the bullet wound in President Kennedy's back was artificially inflicted after the assassination.

Mr. Lifton did not directly address the two articles that had recently been published by JAMA, featuring interviews with the autopsy pathologists.  It was my understanding that this was the purpose of the debate.  I believe that Mr. Lifton's use of this occasion amounted to little more than self-promotion.

When my turn came, I stated for the record that I do not subscribe to the "Best Evidence" theory.  I refuted Mr. Lifton's suggestion that there was no back wound with some new information given to me just days earlier.  I encouraged the audience to focus on what occurred at the autopsy, instead of looking for ghost conspirators who allegedly intercepted and mutilated the President's corpse.  These remarks, however, constituted a small fraction of my presentation, which was mainly devoted to examining the autopsy pathologists' self-contradictory statements about the autopsy.

I felt (and still do) that my remarks were appropriate, well-guided, and necessary.  The critics' panel had been advertised in advance flyers promoting the Symposium program as a "team" serving as counterpoint to JAMA's panel.  JAMA had a unified position, i.e., the Warren Report was correct.  The critics are not unified in their beliefs, although the news media tends to lump them together.  Mr. Lifton's theory is highly controversial and as yet unproven, although it has been widely adopted and thoroughly publicized.  He and I have diametrically and irreconcilably opposing viewpoints on the subject of the autopsy.  The convener of the debate planned to disseminate a tape to the public.  I wanted it clearly established that not all critics agree with Lifton; that my points should be answered separately; and that our views of what constitutes the heart of the problem are very different.  My dual goals were to prod the audience into thought about both the credibility of the pathologists, an issue that Mr. Lifton concedes as a given, and, frankly, the value of his thesis.

As I returned to my seat, Mr. Lifton said to me, "You're despicable."  It was evident that he was upset by my remarks, even though I had credited him with an important evidentiary find, a witness who had conversed with White House Physician Adm. George Burkley that night.  During an interchange before the audience, Mr. Lifton took out of his portfolio and read from a printout of an E-mail message I had sent him as a follow-up to a recent telephone conversation in preparation for the debate.  Although the entire thrust of the message had been tactics and strategy for the debate, Mr. Lifton attempted to use a portion of it to portray my approach to the case as equivocal.

Most of the audience reaction that I received afterward was highly complimentary.  I recall that the audience was generous in its response, and I believe that the tape of the event will prove that statement correct.

On the Compuserve Information Service, some discussion ensued among Symposium attendees about the episode.  In order to explain my stand on Mr. Lifton's work, I uploaded an informal critique to one of the forum software libraries.  One forum member, a fan of "Best Evidence" who has contributed research to Mr. Lifton, objected to its tone and disagreed with its content, whereupon a discussion of Mr. Lifton's work followed.

Approximately two weeks later, two separate essays by Lifton were filed in response to mine.  One replied to my suggestion that the semi-autobiographical nature of his book was questionable in that Mr. Lifton did not appear to have much of a theory, or much evidence to support his theory, until after the House Select Committee on Assassinations completed its work in December 1978, and still had nothing to show for his years of labor.  Mr. Lifton purported to trace the development of his work in arguing that I was incorrect.

The other Lifton essay was a vehement personal attack in the manner of a long-distance psychological profile by someone who admitted that he did not know me well.

Mr. Lifton complained to Compuserve authorities that I had libeled him, a misconception on his part but one that temporarily intimidated the forum operators into removing my essay from the library.  He subsequently joined Compuserve as a member to claim the protection of the CIS rule against abusive personal attacks, a rule that appears to encompass matters falling short of the legal definition of libel.  Mr. Lifton maintains, in effect, that to attack his book is to attack his life as he claims to have lived it, thus blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of his book and the general trend of his work on the assassination, and personal criticism of him.  Mr. Lifton has also circulated his essays privately through the mail under separate covering letters critical of my actions, personality, and mental stability.  He has also made known his ire through phone calls to a number of well-known critics, including those with whom I have associated for many years.

The sophistry of the former essay, and both the method and pervasive inaccuracies of the latter essay persuaded me that, instead of objecting to his personal attack and demanding its removal and retraction, I ought to let it stand in public view.  Mr. Lifton's own rope is sufficient to hang him.

These two Lifton essays represent the written work of a celebrity author who has been widely recognized as a spokesman of critical scholarship in the assassination.  They contain illustrations of his use of alleged fact; his precision and accuracy; his employment of quotations as evidence in argument; his version of the early history of the critical studies movement; his appraisal of other critics, including Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg; and his version of certain episodes that occurred during his research and writing of "Best Evidence."  In every sense, they illustrate those aspects of a professional writer/speaker's craft that, as applied in his book, merit the same critical evaluation and objective scrutiny of his readers.

In the interests of comprehensiveness and understanding, I have incorporated my original essay into this greatly expanded consideration of Mr. Lifton's very public role in the assassination controversy and the merits of his book.  I also reply directly to his personal denunciation, inasmuch as it is highly relevant to those factors just mentioned.

The main point, however, is not a dispute between personalities (which was never a concern for me), but the struggle over an idea:  How do we, as private citizens or public figures, approach the problem of getting close to the truth about the Kennedy assassination?  I believe that Mr. Lifton's work seriously distracts us from this effort and is otherwise deficient.  Moreover, the issue is too important to leave in the hands of those who make the assassination their lifetime business pursuit and command substantial media attention to their theories, including those theories that are incapable of proof and hostile to any form of disproof.  The media chooses such people to provide "bread-and-circuses" to the masses, and their theories, somehow institutionalized in a constrictive array of shooting targets, become divorced from the evidence.

It is not everyone who gets the opportunity to publish a book and appear on public platforms on this subject, but those who do not can still make their voices heard by writing letters to the conveners of these Symposia in Dallas and Chicago, contacting journalists, and speaking with friends and colleagues.  As a general matter, we do not require charismatic leaders, and we can certainly do without shrewd manipulators.  From the earliest days, the drive to force our government to tell us the truth (or to tell us that it does not know the truth) has been a grassroots phenomenon, and there it still finds its greatest strength.  That essential quality must not lag.

CHAPTER ONE

YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME, YOU NEVER DID, I HATE YOU

(When is a Critic a Critic?)

During the noon hour on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, Malcolm Perry, an assistant professor of surgery and attending surgeon, left the Southwestern Medical School for its teaching facility, Parkland Hospital, and his usual one o'clock rounds with the residents. (3H 366).  He was eating lunch in the second-floor cafeteria with Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, the chief surgical resident (3H 367), when the hospital's operator sounded an emergency page for Dr. Tom Shires, chief of the emergency surgical service.  Perry knew that Shires was delivering a paper at a meeting in Galveston (ibid.), so after the second emergency call he asked Jones to pick up the phone. (6H 52).

The operator told Jones that the President Kennedy had been shot and was being brought to the emergency room.  We don't know what thoughts passed through their minds at that moment, only that Perry and Jones immediately dashed down one flight of stairs from the cafeteria to the emergency room area, and into a little cubicle known as Trauma Room 1.

When he entered TR 1 and saw John F. Kennedy lying before him on a stretcher carriage, dying, Perry's first thought was that the President was a larger man than he had imagined (New York Times, November 28, 1963).  He saw the gaping wound in the President's skull, and he knew that it was mortal. (ibid.)  But there was no time for further reflection.

Dr. Charles Carrico had already arrived at the President's side. (6H 2, 3H 359, 3H 367)  Because of Kennedy's inadequate respiration and an injury to his throat, Carrico inserted a breathing tube into the mouth and down the trachea past the injury.  He then attached the tube to a mechanical respirator. (6H 3)  It became obvious, however, that this procedure would not secure an airway.  The President's breathing was still spasmodic, and there was a leakage of air around the tracheal wound. (ibid.)

Dr. Perry, who was the senior attending physician at the time, decided to perform a tracheostomy, the insertion of a breathing tube directly into the windpipe through an incision in the throat.  Since the throat wound's location coincided with the spot normally used for a tracheostomy, Perry made his incision directly through the wound as an expedient. (3H 369)
Other emergency procedures were attempted, but the battle had been lost from the beginning.  The chief of neurosurgery at Parkland, Dr. Kemp Clark, pronounced President Kennedy dead at 1 p.m.

A little more than an hour later, in a second-floor nurses' classroom which had been hastily converted into a makeshift press center, Drs. Perry and Clark were confronted with a battery of klieg lights, a bewildering array of cables, whirring cameras and spinning tape decks, and a horde of newsmen hungry for a story.  The world already knew that President Kennedy was dead.  It needed to know how he died.

Clark, who had arrived in TR 1 as Perry was performing the tracheostomy, had not seen the throat wound in its undeformed state. (6H 20)  As a neurosurgeon, he spoke mostly about the President's head injury.  Perry spoke about the emergency procedures, and about the wound in Kennedy's throat.  The reporters were unfamiliar with medical terms, such as "moribund" (near death), "endotracheal tube" (oral breathing tube), and "tracheostomy," and they frequently interrupted to get the correct spellings.

Following the press conference, Perry was widely quoted in the news media as having identified the throat wound as one of entrance.  A UPI report published in The New York World Telegram & Sun on the afternoon of the assassination said, "There was an entrance wound below his Adam's apple.  There was another wound in the back of his head." (NYWT&S, November 22, 1963).  Tom Wicker of The New York Times: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they said.  This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry." (New York Times, November 23, 1963)  Other newspapers and the television networks concurred. (See, e.g., Dallas Times Herald, November 24, 1963; NBC, Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes, Random House. New York: 1966, p. 11; CBS News, The Assassination of President Kennedy as Broadcast over the CBS Television Network, unpublished transcript of coverage on November 22, 1963, pp. 51, 97).

The question whether Perry's observation was correct or mistaken belies two basic points: First, Perry was reported to have made this statement by several highly respected members of the White House press corps and local reporters.  Second, Perry's identification of the throat wound as an entry was conjecture -- unknowing and unintentional, to be sure, but conjecture nonetheless in the strict sense of the word.  As he later told the Warren Commission, Perry did not examine the President so thoroughly as to ascertain the trajectory of the missile(s) that struck the President, or the pathway of the bullet through the body. (6H 15, 3H 373, 3H 374)  He did not know the position in which the President had been sitting when he was shot.  His conjecture, however, was based upon his professional medical experience in dealing with gunshot victims and his personal experience as a hunter. (3H 366, 6H 18)  From the undisturbed appearance of the wound, Perry had concluded that afternoon that, in the words of one reporter in Dallas, "a bullet struck him in the front as he faced the assailant." (NBC, op. cit., p. 11)  The reporters at the news conference did not know this, and they had no alternative but to report what Perry said and what they heard.

Of course, Perry's observation conflicted with the official theory of the assassination, that President Kennedy was shot only from the rear as his limousine passed the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building in which the lone assassin lurked.  Perry's comments therefore immediately gave rise to the question that attorney Mark Lane and others have been asking for nearly thirty years:  How could accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald have shot the President in the throat from behind?

The Warren Commission labored to cast doubt that the reporters at the press conference had quoted Perry accurately, an effort in which Perry himself acquiesced.  For years after the assassination independent researchers searched in vain for proof of his original statement.  Lane, in particular, was anxious to include film footage of the Parkland news conference in his documentary on the Warren Report.  In his book of the same title, Rush to Judgment, Lane reported that the three major networks and local Dallas stations no longer had television and radio tapes of the briefing. (Lane, Mark.  Rush to Judgment.  Dell Publishing Co., New York: 1975, p.  53)  Elaborating on that claim in an interview with Playboy Magazine, Lane said that the local Dallas stations were visited after the assassination by FBI and Secret Service agents and asked to surrender all of their tapes. (Playboy, February 1967, p. 50).

Then, on June 26, 1967, in the second of four nightly CBS News programs on the Warren Report, anchorman Walter Cronkite made reference to "the transcript of that news conference" without giving his audience any additional identification or indication of its source.  Since that night, there has been no further word from CBS about the document.

The transcript of the Parkland Hospital news conference to which CBS referred was not of the network's own making: it was a non-classified government document unseen by the Warren Commission.

Arlen Specter, the Warren Commission staff lawyer who developed the medical evidence in the assassination, made a feeble and somewhat transparent attempt to obtain for that investigation a recording or transcript of the statements made by Dr. Perry on November 22, 1963.  Although Specter told the Commission that, "[W]e have been trying diligently to get the tape records of the television interview, and we were unsuccessful," (3H 378) there is no evidence that the use of the Commission's subpoena power was considered at any time.  Instead of inquiring on its own, the panel asked the Secret Service to undertake a search.  The performance of the Secret Service was equally lackluster, for a reason I shall presently discuss.  On March 25, 1964, Secret Service Director James J. Rowley wrote the Commission that no videotape recording or transcript could be found at the television networks or the Dallas stations. (CD 678) 

Specter understandably did not press the issue.  Perry's statement about an entrance wound in President Kennedy's throat was directly at odds with the official report issued by three military pathologists who conducted the Kennedy autopsy at Bethesda Naval Medical Center on the night of the assassination.  They concluded that the President was shot twice from the rear.

One of the peculiarities of this case is that, on the weekend of the assassination, neither the Parkland group nor the Bethesda group of doctors had seen all of the President's wounds.  The autopsy surgeons found a wound on the upper right-hand side of his back.  The Parkland doctors were unaware of this wound at the time they treated the President, since they did not turn him over on his stomach. (6H 3, 6H 5, 3H 382)  On the other hand, the Parkland doctors were the only ones who had observed the throat wound in its original state.  Due to the tracheostomy that had been performed through this site, the Bethesda doctors said they did not regard it as a bullet wound while the President's body was in their hands.  Only later did they infer, rather than actually trace, a path from the wound in the back to the wound in the throat. (2H 368)

Specter, as middleman, played one group against the other to coax support for his single-bullet theory that one shot, fired from the rear, hit both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, who sat in front of Kennedy in the presidential limousine during the ill-fated motorcade through Dallas.  It was a theory which both the Commission's critics and supporters agreed was the cornerstone of the case for a lone gunman.  Verification of Perry's statement about an entrance wound in the throat through the production of a transcript would only have gotten in the way of Specter's strategy.

In Dr. Perry's case, the strategy was two-pronged:

First, without every asking Perry to deny that he had formed an initial opinion at Parkland Hospital on November 22, to establish that the doctor's earlier comments on the throat wound had been misquoted and misinterpreted by the press; and

Second, to elicit Perry's opinion of the possibility of the throat wound being one of exit by asking him to assume as true the autopsy findings and other information that Specter provided.

Both tactics lured Perry into embracing the autopsy findings without recanting his original statements, while still maintaining his professional pride.  The second also led Perry, in his testimony before the Warren Commission, into the very sort of speculation that the press had solicited.

Perry offered little resistance.  He did not stand up the the authorities as Robert Redford and Warren Beatty do in the movies.  Perry knew that his "entrance wound" statement at Parkland had thrown a wrench into the works.  The morning after the assassination (i.e., the morning following the autopsy), Perry told Clark that "he had been asked by Bethesda to confine his remarks to that which he knew from having examined the President. (6H 23)

Even if Perry, four months after the assassination, felt sure of what he saw in TR 1, he would have been stepping out on a fragile and lonely limb to say so.  Having a transcript of his Parkland remarks before him as he testified would have been of as little help to him as it would to Specter.  Specter, the middleman, held the cards -- and the autopsy report.

Specter asked Perry, not did he form an opinion at Parkland as to whether the throat wound was an entry or exit, not did he have a basis, but did he have a *sufficient* basis to form such an opinion?

"No, sir.  I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile." (3H 373).

Were sufficient facts available then to form an opinion as to the source or direction of the cause of the wound?

No, Perry replied, "although several leading questions were directed toward me at the several conferences." (6H 15)

"Often questions were directed as to -- in such a manner as this: 'Doctor, is it possible that if he were in such and such a position and the bullet entered here, could it have done that?' And my reply, 'Of course, if it were possible, yes, that is possible, but similarly, it did not have to be so, necessarily.'" (ibid.)

"...I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound ...." (6H 12)

He could not come to a *conclusive* opinion from the physical characteristics of the wound in and of themselves. (6H 15)  In general, Perry testified that he spoke only in terms of *possibilities* (3H 375, 376).

So, too, before the Warren Commission.

Would Perry please assume that the President was struck by a copper-jacketed bullet?  Now, would he also assume that it was fired at muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 feet per second?  Add that the bullet entered the President's back (a wound Perry had never seen), that it went through the muscle tissue as described by the official autopsy report (a path that neither Perry nor the autopsy surgeons themselves traced), and that it exited the throat (a fact that the autopsy pathologists merely assumed).  

Would the wound he observed in the throat be consistent with an exit wound?

"Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound." (3H 373)

Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?

"It could have been either." (ibid.)

If, that is, the hypothesis posed to Perry by Specter were true?

"That is correct, sir.  I have no way to authenticate either by own knowledge." (6H 15)

In this manner, Specter sought to dispel the confusion and to reconcile the Parkland doctors' testimony to the autopsy report.  Having thus neutralized Perry, the Commission was not above overkill.  The Warren Report's section on the wounds said:

At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical questions and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could account for the President's wounds.  He stated that a single bullet could have caused the President's wounds by entering through the throat, striking the spine, and being deflected upward with the point of exit being through the head.  WR 90)

The Report presented this information as factual, without attributing these statements to Perry's testimony.  Perry issued no such reconstruction at the news conference, although he was alleged to have done so in at least one press account (UPI dispatch published in Dallas Times Herald, November 24, 1963).  In his testimony,  Perry simply thought he remembered (perhaps under the influence of what he had read in the press since the assassination) positing the course of a bullet. (3H 375, 376, 6H 13)  The Report continued:

Dr. Perry said his answers at the press conference were intended to convey his theory about what could have happened, based on his limited knowledge at the time, rather than his professional opinion about what did happen. . . . (WR 90)

Perry, however, had denied holding any theory of the wounds, either at the time of the assassination or at the time he testified. (6H 12, 15)  Neither did he advance any theory during the press conference.

The transcript of that press conference gives the game away.  It reveals that both Drs. Perry and Clark repeatedly and emphatically declined to speculate on the trajectory of the shots or their course through the President's body.  They confined themselves to what they had observed and done.  They spoke of a head wound and a neck wound, without saying whether the wounds were made by one, two or more bullets.

Dr. Perry described the neck wound as an entrance wound.  His opinion was definite.  It left no room for doubt.  He had arrived at that judgment independent of the factors that Arlen Specter would later ask him to assume, and before the best evidence, President Kennedy's body, had been transported behind military lines.

Dr. Perry had an opinion on November 22.  Based upon the hypothesis later given to him by Specter, Perry decided that his was not "the correct opinion."  Unlike testimony, however, the Perry transcript could not be shaded through the use of hypothetical questions.  Unlike the Zapruder film with its unmistakable depiction of the violent backward thrust of Kennedy's body, it could not be ignored.  Unlike scientific tests, it could not be misinterpreted.  Therefore, the Perry transcript had to be buried.

The Parkland news conference was actually a White House news conference, because it was conducted by Wayne Hawks, a member of the White House transportation staff.  Hawks was acting in place of Malcolm Kilduff, the assistant White House Press Secretary who accompanied President Kennedy to Dallas, and who left Parkland Hospital with President Johnson a few minutes before the press conference began.  The transcript of the news conference was on file in the White House Press office, under the nose of the White House Detail of the Secret Service, which had purportedly sought it for the Warren Commission.

Arlen Specter knew about Hawks' role in the press conference, because Malcolm Perry told him about it on the first day of his testimony. (6H 7)  That was March 25, 1964, the same day that Secret Service Chief Rowley wrote the Commission to say he had been unsuccessful in locating a videotape recording. (CD 678)  Since Perry did not testify again until five days later (March 30, 1964), Specter could have obtained the transcript for that session.  He did not.
. . .
Several authors have devoted lengthy books to cataloging the Warren Commission's penchant for willfully disregarding eyewitness accounts of the shooting, ignoring physical evidence that was inconvenient to its predetermined conclusions, as well as its misrepresentations, obfuscations and prevarications relating to the evidence that it did receive.  I have recounted the tale of Malcolm Perry and the transcript of his news conference only because it is one with which David Lifton, the author of "Best Evidence" is all too familiar.  He tells us in his book that he cashed a tax refund check to purchase a set of the Commission's 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits.  He read all of the newspaper and magazine accounts that he could find.  He read many books about the assassination that were published before his.  Still, there is substantial cause for restless doubt that he pursued his readings and investigations with the same purpose, intent and understandings that the overwhelming majority of other writers, researchers and critics shared.

For the benefit of those few who may never have heard about "Best Evidence", let alone undertaken the wearying task of reading the book through to its end, Lifton theorizes that while Jacqueline Kennedy went to the front of Air Force One for the swearing-in of Lyndon Johnson, shortly before the plane took off from Love Field in Dallas to return to Washington, somebody transferred JFK's remains from a coffin to a body bag, which was secreted away -- somewhere.  He further theorizes that, when the plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, the body bag was secretly offloaded from the right side of the plane as some 3000 spectators and millions of television viewers watched an empty bronze ceremonial casket being unloaded and placed in an ambulance on the left side, the area being illuminated by klieg lights.  While the ambulance drove to Bethesda, the body was flown by helicopter to Walter Reed Army Hospital for alteration (e.g., the addition or modification of wounds, and the removal of bullets), then taken to Bethesda in a gray metal shipping casket before the arrival of the empty "original" coffin.  Somehow, someone managed to re-casket the body in its original coffin without anyone else noticing.

The autopsy pathologists at Bethesda, according to Lifton, were deceived by the "medical forgery" into believing that the President had been shot from behind, rather than from in front of the limousine in which he rode through downtown Dallas.  Specifically, Lifton alleges a plot that enlarged JFK's head wound and added two rear wounds, one in the head and one in the upper back.  He alleges that neither of those rear wounds were seen by the nurses and doctors who handled the President's body at Parkland.

Lifton pretends to posit only a small, high-level plot involving a clique of officials. ("America's Unsolved Mystery", Palm Beach Post, November 22, 1991, p. 1D)  With the briefest reflection, however, it is clear that the "Best Evidence" thesis requires not only a group of assassins, but legions who could plant a phony bullet at Parkland Hospital, plant phony bullet fragments in the President's limousine, steal and then alter the President's corpse, alter the Zapruder film, and alter the autopsy X-rays and photographs.  It would have required utilization of the kind of sophisticated project management computer software that did not even exist in 1963 to coordinate and move the President's body, hordes of unidentified conspirators, coffins, coffin guard teams, doctors, Secret Service Agents, F.B.I. agents, and Kennedy staffers, as well as to conduct the complex array of operations that he envisions.  Still, he insists that it was a small plot.

People are entitled to their sincerely held beliefs on the subject of President Kennedy's assassination.  Nevertheless, when a prominent writer about the assassination dares to suggest, as David Lifton did passingly in a footnote to his book ("The critics' conclusion that the Commission "covered up" had created blind spots in their research effort.  My friendship with Liebler caused me to put aside my suspicions and realize that a person could, in good faith, hold the Commission's position." [Hardcover, p. 299fn]), and now does again in essays published both privately and on the online Compuserve Information Service, that the Warren Commission and its various counsel were as honest and objective in their account of the evidence as newspaper reporters attempting to simply report news, it seems not only fair but urgent that those who are familiar with the record question that writer's bona fides as a critic, as well as the true nature of the role that he appears to perform in this controversy.  Indeed, Mr. Lifton does not stop at exonerating the Warren Commission; he insists that neither the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital, nor the surgeons who performed the autopsy at Bethesda lied about the events of November 22.  While his book implies that the latter's military superiors (or other unidentified attendees at the autopsy) were involved in a body swipe that appears to resemble a game of musical caskets, Mr. Lifton nevertheless takes great pains in exonerating the White House physician, Navy Admiral George G. Burkley, of any culpable knowledge or involvement.

In Mr. Lifton's view, the Warren Commission stands on equal footing with the rest of the world vis-a-vis the Kennedy assassination: all of us were merely deceived by invisible plotters who phonied up the evidence.  He writes:

"I was taken with the idea that the Commission had been the victim of a monstrous deception, and was decidedly uncomfortable with the notion that because the Warren Report was written in a one-sided fashion, that meant the investigation was a fraud." (Chapter 15)

These are, however, decidedly different views than those that were ostensibly held by "the old Lifton", the one whose myriad conspiracy theories merrily skipped along the farthest fringe of assassination research and criticism of the Warren Commission during the Sixties.  So different, in fact, that one might be tempted to argue in his manner that David Lifton is really dead, and that an imposter has taken his place.  Were the difference clearly based upon principle, exemplified by a frank confession of error corrected through maturation and scholarly re-evaluation, one might lament his defection from the critics' ranks without faulting this aspect of either his book or current dogma.  Unfortunately, Mr. Lifton carefully conceals his former beliefs about the Commission, as well as his gestalt view of the assassination, and invents a completely false legend for himself which  throws the entire autobiographical aspect of "Best Evidence", as well as the marrow of his forensic argument, into serious question.

Sadly, the "disguise and deception" of "Best Evidence" is by no one except David Lifton.

It was Lifton who once wrote of the early Warren Commission critic, Edward Jay Epstein, some seven months before the latter's "Inquest" was published, "[H]e seems to want the recognition of being an important critic of [the Warren Commission's] work, yet somehow say it wasn't their fault.  I think he is deceiving himself about the character of some of those men and his work will be the less hard hitting because of this." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, November 21, 1965)

Indeed, Lifton criticized Epstein for overlooking what he termed the Commission's "moral guilt."  And he also accused the Warren Commission of "sanctioning" a coverup, excorciating Epstein for "refusing to condemn" them. (ibid.)

Later, Lifton offered that some Warren Commission attorneys "deceived themselves to the point that they actually believe their own 'big lie'," and he referred to "constraints ... that prevented a completely free and impartial inquiry." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, December 5, 1965)

But who is the deceiver and who is the deceived?

At the beginning of his Chapter Two of "Best Evidence", Lifton gives us an account of his public confrontation with former CIA Director and Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles over the backward snap of JFK's head in the Z-film.  One searches his narrative in vain for any thought or feeling in reaction to this encounter.  In fact, however, Lifton could scarcely conceal his disgust with Dulles.  Contemporaneously, he would write: "What I was surprised at was the rather disgusting ease with which he lied through his teeth when necessary."  And Lifton conceded that such a man would lie "for reasons of state." (Lifton, David. Notes and Comments on an Interview with Allen Dulles, December 7, 1965)

He castigates pioneering critic Mark Lane's style of public speaking in his book, yet after hearing the very debate between Lane and Liebeler that serves as his vehicle for such denigration, the old, private Lifton explicitly agreed with Lane's characterization of the Warren Report as "a moral crime, a hoax, and a fraud."  (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, October 13, 1966)

And he continued: "I also believe the Report was authored by people who, at least at some level knew that what they were authoring was a complete cock and bull story. ... The Report itself, as you put it, deliberately uses the English language in the service of obfuscation and guile." (ibid.)

Should the merciful rationalize Mr. Lifton's conversion from critic to apologist for the Warren Commission in terms of a transition from the nascent, hastily-formed judgments of a novice researcher to the deeper, more intellectually mature insights of a scholar, they ought first to consider that he expressed virtually the same sentiments again in 1969, and as late as mid-March 1970 in correspondence with Sylvia Meagher, author of "Accessories After The Fact" and two indices to the official investigations of the assassination..

In "Best Evidence", Lifton appraises Meagher and, with seemingly pinpoint precision, describes his own state of mind as of November 4, 1966:

"Sylvia Meagher represented the view that the Commission and its staff were conscious concealers of the truth -- deliberate, criminally culpable liars.

"I could no longer subscribe to that view, for it failed to take into account falsified evidence.  Many critics didn't allow for that possibility."

In reality, *long after* he professes to have arrived at this conclusion, Lifton wrote to Meagher:

"There are instances where I think the WC staff was deliberately dishonest," he wrote, "and I will not hesitate to say so (or, perhaps better, demonstrate this as fact.)  I don't think its [sic] all oversight, overwork or *deception by others*." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, October 13, 1969)(Emphasis supplied)(The "deception by others" reference puzzles this writer, since it seems to contradict Mr. Lifton's claim in "Best Evidence" that he was developing its central theory of a deceived autopsy at the time.)

Mr. Lifton was then coordinating the ordering, reproduction and distribution of major portions of the Warren Commission's unpublished files to her and other critics, a subject that I shall later revisit.  In a transmittal memorandum covering approximately 2200 pages of documents known as "the Gemberling reports" (after FBI Agent Robert Gemberling of the Dallas Field Office), Mr. Lifton advised he had selected them with a bias toward revealing that the Warren Commission's attorneys "were trying not to tell us something," and that they would "sweep disagreeable information (disagreeable in the sense that it was in conflict with the conclusions of the particular area of the investigation that came under the aegis of the staff attorney involved)" under the rug. (Lifton, David. Memorandum, March 13, 1970)  

Chapter One of "Best Evidence" describes a November 2, 1965 meeting between David Lifton and Wesley Liebeler concerning letters that Liebeler had received from various former Warren Commission staff attorneys in response to his queries on behalf of Lifton about a splice in the Zapruder film.  As the two of them walked to a photocopy machine, Lifton wrote circa 1978, "I kept up a running stream of comment that it was only a matter of time now until the entire Warren Report came apart at the seams."  But in his contemporary record of this same conversation, Lifton follows the word "seams" with a comma instead of a period, and continues his self-quotation: "and that I feel sorry for the staff attorney's [sic] who were 'used' and who still have their whole careers ahead of them." (Lifton, David. "Interview with W.J.L.," November 30, 1965)(Lifton, David. "Interview with W.J.L." [unpublished memorandum])

Lifton, who wrote in his book that, during the mid-Sixties he thought Liebeler stood separate and apart from the other Warren Commission staff attorneys, omitted his insight about their being "used" from his book, but clearly entertained the belief in 1965 that certain staff attorneys would be damaged were the Warren Report proved false.  Today he argues that they were honest men who were deceived by the evidence.

What happened to David Lifton between the time he left work and school, co-wrote an article for Ramparts, also wrote those letters to Sylvia Meagher and memoranda to his files, and the time when he found his literary agent and publisher?  Did an honest change come about in him?  Did he formulate his present-day hypocrisy on the basis of some changed analysis of the 26-volumes, or was it a pitiable effort to make his body swipe/alteration scheme seem less demonologic to his benefactors and the public?  How was he transformed from a young man who courted the approval of the major critics of an earlier day to one who now lunges to disparage, defame and discredit them?  Who turned David Lifton?  Or, was there any need to turn him, i.e., did he actually feign at being a critic in his correspondence and dealings with Meagher (and/or others) from the start?

In what must seem another lifetime, Mr. Lifton graduated from the Cornell University School of Engineering and Physics in 1962 (New York Times, January 12, 1981, Section C, p. 17).  With his background in math, physics, and engineering, he had planned to become a scientist. ("'JFK': Lone-Assassin Debate; Four Doubters Have Pursued Truth For Decades", Sacramento Bee, January 7, 1992, p. F1)  At the time of President Kennedy's assassination, he was 24 years old and pursuing an advanced degree in engineering at UCLA while working nights as a computer engineer at North American Aviation, then a prime contractor for the Apollo space program. ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

In 1966, he was drummed out of UCLA for neglecting his studies. (Ibid.)  He allegedly quit his job with North American and asked his parents for financial support to pursue his assassination research. (Ibid.)  He had no plans to write a book about the assassination, he claims that he just wanted to devote maybe half a year to studying the matter (Ibid.)

Lifton's study of the assassination only began with his purchase of a set of the Warren Commission volumes.  He also obtained photocopies of the Commission's working papers, i.e., interoffice memos and letters to investigative agencies.  ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Id.).

In a memoir of his experiences during the Sixties, Warren Hinckle, former editor of Ramparts magazine, remembers Lifton as "a pushy UCLA engineering student who was known as 'Blowup,' since his specialty was enlarging photographs of Dealey Plaza taken the morning of the assassination and finding figures lurking in the background.  Lifton did not like to hear no for an answer and was persisitent in insisting that one pick out the figure of a man among a forest of black and white dots in a twenty times enlargement of a Polaroid snapshot of Dealey Plaza he toted around like a billboard paster going to work."  (Hinckle, Warren.  If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade, G.P. Putnam's Sons; New York: 1974, p. 214)

In addition to the expense he incurred in the reproduction of official documents and photographs, during the 1960's and 70's Mr. Lifton seems to have engaged in an extensive travel itinerary while pursuing his studies of the assassination.  He went to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., at least three times, spending six weeks there the first trip, one month the second.  He also visited Dallas, the scene of the assassination, and made additional trips to Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Bethesda to interview witnesses.  ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Id.; Lifton's own accounts of his travels in "Best Evidence".)

He spent as much as $800 a month in long-distance phone tolls over the fifteen years preceding the publication of his book.  ("David Lifton's Startling Study of JFK's Murder," The Washington Post, September 5, 1980, Style Section, p.C1)  That comes to $9600 a year in long-distance bills alone, figure a rounded $10,000 a year so as to include local charges, or $150,000 in total for use of the telephone.  Since man does not live by the telephone alone, one must assume that, during his fifteen year sojourn, Mr. Lifton somehow managed to absorb the same customary and usual expenses of most single people living in a major urban center -- such as Los Angeles -- for rent, utilities, food, clothing, his automobile, and a modicum of leisure activities.  Add to these the incidental, but nonetheless sizable, expenses of his research, such as audio tape recorders; audio tapes; maintenance and repair; books, both local and out-of-town newspapers, magazines; reproduction costs associated with photographs, films, and microfilms, as well as thousands of pages of documents; more than several file cabinets, file folders, etc., and one can only puzzle over how he managed to make his own way during those years.  His correspondence with Sylvia Meagher discloses that, at various times, he also had one or two girls transcribing audio tapes.

In retrospect, it seems ironic that Mr. Lifton would call it "a miracle that so much evidence in the case has been turned up by a group of freelancers working on a shoestring." (For Conspiracists, Vindication Day; Government is Beginning to Acknowledge What Really Happened", The Washington Post, December 30, 1978, p. A4)

Whose shoestring?

During the fifteen years preceding the publication of "Best Evidence", Mr. Lifton wrote two articles for magazine publications, one for Ramparts in 1967, and one for New Times in 1978.  In between these assignments, he served briefly as a consultant to the producers of the motion picture, "Executive Action."  Also in 1978, he appeared as a critic/commentator on WETA-TV's broadcasts of the hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations hearings.  Then, Macmillan gave him a $10,000 advance for the book.  (The New York Times, January 12, 1981, Section C, p. 17)  Prior to the publication of "Best Evidence" in late 1980,  Mr. Lifton is not known to have held any job -- regular or otherwise -- following his departure from North American Aviation.  His correspondence with Sylvia Meagher tells of long days and nights allegedly spent at the UCLA library, burning the candles at both ends in working on the case.  Therefore, it appears that during the twelve years between the time he left North American and the time in 1978 when things began to pick up for him, he had only one published magazine article, one brief consultancy to a motion picture company, and no other ostensible source of income.  It has been suggested that his parents subsidized him during all this time as he investigated the assassination of President Kennedy.  If that is so, then Mr. Lifton is most fortunate to have had parents possessed of a generosity, indulgence and patience very rare in the middle-class milieu from which he sprang.

On a shoestring, Harold Weisberg mounted more than a dozen difficult FOIA lawsuits.  Mr. Lifton offered no help, he merely gleaned the field that Weisberg sowed.

By the summer of 1975, nearly ten years after he began his study of the Warren Commission volumes, Mr. Lifton reportedly had not written a word of his manuscript.  He is quoted as saying, "It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)  His longtime research assistant, Patricia Lambert would tell him, "David, you have to create a manuscript.  You can't just have these thoughts, your files, your research and your concepts.  You have to tackle the process of writing every day." (Ibid.)  Mr. Lifton alleges in his Compuserve essays that he took "a major gamble" in writing his book without a publishing contract, although what he was risking by that time is unclear, as he appears not to have had another gainful pursuit.

Lifton states that he completed a manuscript by August 1976.  When he did try to produce a book, however, it turned out that he could not find anyone interested in publishing it. (Ibid.)  Indeed, twenty-three (23) publishers, apparently not realizing the quality of his investigative skills, rejected his first manuscript before he received a contract from Macmillan Company in 1978. (Ibid.)  About that time, Mr. Lifton, while keeping his Los Angeles apartment, moved into his parents' house in Rockaway Beach, Queens, to rewrite his manuscript under the tutelage of his New York literary agent, Peter Shepherd.

Living in the same room he grew up in, Lifton may well have recalled all the Erle Stanley Gardner mysteries he read as a child (ibid.), possibly harboring dreams of becoming a great lawyer in the manner of the protagonist, Perry Mason.  We know that, as he slept in his childhood bedroom, he gave some thought to his contemporaries raising families and pursuing careers. (ibid.)

According to Mr. Lifton's "Compuserve essays" the first ten chapters of his book were submitted to his publsher in August, 1978.  A contract was consummated around that Christmas.

Even as he reworked his manuscript into a semi-autobiographical account of his research, he continued researching for the book despite the exhortations of his agent to finish the project.  As Lifton admits at the beginning of his Chapter 25, though, "there were certain loose ends in my theory that I needed to investigate."  Those "loose ends" turned out to provide the core of the theory that Mr. Lifton popularized.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted its investigation during the time Lifton began to work toward finishing the new manuscript.  During the summer of 1979, Mr. Lifton located one of the House Committee's witnesses, Paul O'Connor.  It was O'Connor whom Lifton claims provided a good deal of the most sensational revelations upon which the "Best Evidence" theory turns: (1) JFK's body allegedly arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a military-issue pinkish-gray shipping casket, not the ceremonial bronze casket in which it had left Parkland Hospital in Dallas; (2) The President's body was in a body bag; (3) The President's cranium was empty, i.e., the brain had been removed.

Mr. Lifton also informs us that, in July 1979, he also found Dennis David, upon whose recollections Mr. Lifton based his "Air Force One Insight", which holds that the President's body had been intercepted.

By August 1979, according to Mr. Lifton, he had completed and submitted to Macmillan Chapter 23 of his book.  The book has 32 chapters.  Mr. Lifton probably means to signify by omission that the last eleven chapters were completed after August 1979.

Today, at 54 years old, living in the same West Los Angeles apartment from which he conducted his research for "Best Evidence", Mr. Lifton has spent his entire adult life on the Kennedy assassination to the exclusion of other experiences and accomplishments.  His passion for this subject would seem unusual in view of the odd behavior he displayed on the very night of President Kennedy's murder: While most of us who are able to recall that weekend sat at home with our families or friends in a state of shock and dumb anguish, Mr. Lifton is reported to have gone out dancing, hardly an indication that the assassination struck him in the deep, personal way that his long association with the subject might suggest. ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Id.)

In conversation with this writer, Harold Weisberg, the dean of assassination authors and researchers, has expressed curiosity about the possibility of a familial relationship between the late founder of Harold Ober & Associates, the venerable New York City literary agency that housed Mr. Lifton's agent, Peter Shepherd, and one Harold Ober who, Mr. Weisberg alleges, formerly worked for the Central Intelligence Agency's covert domestic intelligence operation.  It bears mention that Messrs. Weisberg and Lifton had a severe falling out during the era of the Garrison investigation, and there is no love lost between them.  I have not made any effort to investigate Mr. Weisberg's hypothesis because, even if it proved correct, the connection with Mr. Lifton and his book would seem tenuous at best, and probably completely inconsequential.  I record these musings merely as an example of the direction toward which some critics' thinking about Mr. Lifton's work has leaned.  Furthermore, I see no need to spin my wheels in attempting to prove that Mr. Lifton's is a "black book," for I have already satisfied myself that it is a ridiculous book arguing for a ridiculous theory.

CHAPTER TWO

THE SCENT OF A WOMAN, PART I: David Lifton and Sylvia Meagher

Sylvia Meagher was the most perceptive and articulate critic of her time, yet susceptible to anyone who seemed to share her goal of achieving justice for both the accused assassin and the Warren Commission.  There is a marvelous story about Sylvia and the researcher Ted Gandalfo.  Gandalfo has specialized in the collection of audio tape and other research materials relating to the assassination since the early days of the case.  He was (and, from what I hear, remains) an ardent supporter of Jim Garrison, in whom Sylvia had no faith, an attitude she vocalized unhesitatingly during the late-Sixties.  Their relations were accordingly quite strained, although Sylvia did consent to appear on Gandalfo's public access cable television program in New York City in 1977 to help him along.

During the mid-Eighties, Gandalfo was working on a book which he eventually published privately.  For over a year, he frequently called Sylvia using the alias, "Bob Foster", disguising his voice and pretending to be calling from out-of-state.  As "Foster", he asked for her advice as he worked on his book.  She was impressed by his knowledge of the case, and eager to see the results of his work.  Mention was frequently made between them of how wonderful it would be to get together for dinner in New York whenever he was in town.

When she eventually caught onto the ruse, Sylvia was furious.  I empathized with her feelings, but encouraged her to think of Gandalfo's actions as a backhanded compliment; he needed her guidance so badly -- knowing that she would have nothing to do with him if he used his real identity -- that he saw a need to go to such extraordinary lengths to solicit it.  This seemed to assuage her anger.  For a variety of reasons that will appear, there would be no similar reconciliation in the offing between Sylvia and David Lifton.

Between late 1965 and the end of 1970, Sylvia Meagher and David Lifton were in frequent contact by mail and telephone.  In a working relationship that ran the gamut from hot-to-frigid, Mrs. Meagher during that period nevertheless generously gave Mr. Lifton of her time, advice and expertise.  Among other materials, her files contain a thick collection of their correspondence and her notes of their telephone conversations.

Lifton has repaid Sylvia by portraying her as either a shrike or a dummy or both.  She is described in his essays as "extremely domineering," having "steely suspicious eyes," and "boiling over" with envy, as well as "confused" about the Warren Commission, in that she believed them guilty of a cover-up (how foolish she was to entertain such thoughts).  He whines about what he perceived as her "viscous abuse" [sic], implying that it related to his failure to produce a book.  He knows otherwise, although he is not telling.  Writing twenty-three years after she discarded him, and over four years after her death, Lifton still demonstrates that same conviction of righteousness, coupled with the feeling of being misunderstood, which pervaded the letters he wrote to her a quarter-century ago.

As Sylvia extended to him the help and encouragement that he solicited from her, and attempted with piercing logic couched in the most gentle and collegial chiding to dissuade him from theories that are charitably described as untenable, (see Chapter 11), Lifton lied to her repeatedly; appropriated material from her unpublished manuscript for his own Ramparts piece; sought unsuccessfully to elicit her sanction of -- perhaps even her participation in -- a shady intrigue to obtain a bootleg copy of the Zapruder film; and sought to rupture her friendship with at least one other major critic.  At every point in their relationship, he abused her, until she would tolerate no more.

The Liebeler Controversy
------------------------
In the prologue and first chapter of his book, Lifton establishes the close working relationship he formed with former Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, Wesley J. Liebeler, whom he first met on October 12, 1965.  He paints the critics as unreasonably suspicious of this liason, perhaps even paranoid.  Sylvia Meagher is portrayed as a screaming, shrieking woman whose primary concern was the protection of her unpublished manuscript for "Accessories After The Fact," worried that Lifton would be "co-opted" by Liebeler, whose reticence to publicly renounce the Report that he privately conceded was defective rendered him morally indistinguishable in her eyes from those other Commission lawyers who towed the party line.

Here again, however, Mr. Lifton fails abysmally to own up to the truth, including the central thrust of Sylvia's objections, and his serious misrepresentation to her of the nature and extent of his contacts with Liebeler.  He essentially repeats his misrepresentations in his Compuserve essays: "She was deeply angered by Liebeler's law seminar and by my attending that class. . ."

It was not the mere fact of Lifton's association with Wesley Liebeler that aroused Sylvia Meagher's concerns and elicited her objections.  It was the fraternizing nature of that association.  Was he merely auditing Liebeler's law school classes and discussing matters with him in a corridor, as he assured her verbally and in writing in downplaying the extent of their dealings?  (Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to David Lifton, November 4, 1966)  Or, was he conferring privately with Liebeler, disclosing the insights, strategems, disagreements, weaknesses, conversations, correspondence, works-in-progress and raw research that the critics had shared with Lifton and/or among themselves in private counsel?  In the highly adversarial atmosphere of the day, and the fear that they were being watched (which turned out to be justified), Mrs. Meagher and other critics were concerned that Mr. Lifton's apparent fascination with Liebeler could lead, even inadvertently, to potentially damaging, or at least embarrassing, disclosures.

In "Best Evidence", Lifton implicitly admits that he provided Liebeler with ammunition to use against the critics; that Liebeler intended to defend the Warren Report at any cost; and that ultimately Lifton ceased to trust him and began to withhold information from him.

[Note: By early November 1966, Liebeler apparently realized that nothing could ever satisfy Lifton.  Lifton reports him as saying, "You've got a commitment to this (head surgery theory) that goes way beyond rationality, and you're never going to change your mind no matter what happens." (Chapter 11)]

Does Lifton, in chronicling his progressive disenchantment with Liebeler, demonstrate the grace, dignity and intellectual honesty to admit that Sylvia's fears were warranted?  On the contrary, he portrays her as a shrewish, shrill-sounding ideologue.

Looking at the available facts and circumstances of Lifton's controversy with the critics over his lovefest with Liebeler a quarter-century later, I find some degree of fault on both sides, with the balance of equities leaning heavily in favor if the critics.  The critics appeared all too eager to assume the worst about Lifton's relationship with Liebeler, and "Best Evidence" strongly implies that their assumptions were not wholly incorrect.  On the other hand, Mr. Lifton displayed a stunning naivete in thinking that he could successfully walk the tightrope and maintain his good standing with the critics.  The critics saw the problem in terms of a political struggle; Mr. Lifton saw it in terms of academic freedom.  They could not counter his logic; he could not fully understand their fears.  But they did not need his help; he needed theirs, and this imbalance of power (which Mr. Lifton seems to resent as "domination"), coupled with his apparent desire to have it both ways, most likely tempted him to mount the pretense of "the big secret" that he could not reveal -- as I shall presently document -- a secret that turned out to be nothing more than a strained interpretation of a clause within a sentence within a document that everyone had read, but a secret that intrigued the critics just enough to stop short of "cutting the bait."

The Earthshaking Secret
---------------------  
Lifton gave Sylvia Meagher and other critics another reason to mistrust him for, by early November 1966, he was beginning to tell them that he had made some kind of discovery of great and conclusive significance that he was unwilling to reveal to them, unwilling to submit for their consultation, information, advice, help and friendship, even as he did not hesitate to seek information from them -- an "earthshaking discovery" that he was unwilling to share with the critics, but willing to share only with his "partners of first choice", Wesley Liebeler and Arlen Specter.

The breach of faith that Sylvia Meagher had only feared before, now materialized.  She pointedly remarked to him: "The time has come for you to ask yourself some searching questions about the alleged hostility of the other researchers and their reluctance to have dealings with you.  Who is out of step with whom?" (Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to David Lifton, November 4, 1966)  She was "shocked and outraged" at Lifton's conduct, and broke off all contact with him for a long time.  (Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to Harold Weisberg, January 28, 1981)

Lifton attempted to see Meagher while she was visiting Los Angeles in mid-January 1967.  While she refused to see him, she accepted his phone call on her last day in L.A., January 15.  She noted, "Admits his great big discovery, the one he took to WJL, is flash in pan." (Meagher, Sylvia. Note for record re phone call from Lifton, January 15, 1967)  Meagher also recalled this phone conversation in a memorandum she wrote after resolving finally to break off contacts with Lifton. (Meagher, Sylvia.  Note for the record, August 25, 1970; Lifton told her the sensational discovery he had taken to Liebeler was "mistaken".)

Besides Meagher's contemporary accounts, there is abundant corroborating evidence for Mr. Lifton's self-imposed isolation.  As his book came to light, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Lifton "was forever tantalizing his contacts in the research community with the claim that he was the only one on the right track. 'He always claimed he was the one researcher among us who knew the answer,'" The Post quoted one unnamed source as saying ("David Lifton's Startling Study of JFK's Murder, The Washington Post, September 5, 1980, p. C1)  Ordinarily, I would not rely solely upon even a well-respected newspaper's quote from an unnamed source, neither is there any instant need to do so.  The Post's report not only conforms to my recollection of limited personal contacts with Mr. Lifton during the mid-to-late-Seventies, but to his own admissions.

"At various times in the past two years, I may have mentioned to various people that I am 'working on a manuscript' for publication.  None of them know what area [of the case] it is, or any specifics . . ." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, February 12, 1969)

"I am not dealing with any of the Warren Report critics in regard to my new work.  This has been my policy since I started to work full time on this case, in the fall of 1966.  There *are* people with whom I have perfectly cordial relationships (such as Fred Newcomb, or Bill O'Connell) yet with whom I do not discuss even the existence of such matters." (ibid.)

"I don't want new ideas, research materials etc. to be stolen by someone who hears about it on the grapevine." (ibid.)

He also exhibited worry for his personal welfare.  (ibid.)

Specifically, he said he had "lowered a wall of silence" between himself and anyone who was sympathetic in any way towards Jim Garrison.  That included a large number of critics, but not Sylvia Meagher, who was vocal in her distaste for Garrison's evidence and methods.  "Even knowledge of the area in which I am working is absolutely taboo."  (ibid.)  Contrary to the apparent implications of this quote, however, Mr. Lifton did not disclose his alleged "head surgery insight" to Meagher.

One must approach Lifton's correspondence with Sylvia Meagher with ever-present caution.  Although hindsight might lull readers into concluding that the foundation of "Best Evidence" was indeed the big secret, the Lifton-Meagher correspondence tends to  indicate on closer inspection that, within the period encompassing their relationship, he was studying and either writing or attempting to write on unrelated areas of the assassination (in which case much of the semi-autobiographical account of his researches in "Best Evidence" falls under suspicion), or else that he was deliberately misleading her into believing that he had taken her into his confidence while actually throwing her off the track.  Based upon the article "His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End" (Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20), previously cited in this work, which establishes through personal interviews that by 1975 Mr. Lifton had no manuscript at all; his January 1967 article for Ramparts Magazine entitled, "The Case For Three Assassins" (discussed in the next chapter of this manuscript); and inferences reasonably drawn from the record of Mr. Lifton's correspondence with Meagher, I have concluded that the semi-autobiographical account contained in "Best Evidence" for the development of Mr. Lifton's theory during the years up to late 1970 is, at best, grossly exaggerated and, at worst, a literary hoax.

For example, as late as January, 1970, Lifton called the following matters that he and Meagher had discussed "integral" to his work and subject to confidentiality:

the alleged interception of the Zapruder film before it went to LIFE Magazine, and the eradication of the alleged car stop that was reported by a handful of eyewitnesses to the assassination (the film alteration theory is briefly discussed in a footnote in the book);

the administrative relationship between Gemberling, Shanklin, and the Dallas Field Office investigation, including Shanklin's transfer to Dallas before the assassination. (Not covered in the book)

the alleged substitution of windshields before one was sent to the FBI laboratory for analysis  (Another footnote in the book);

the shooting of Governor Connally as an "accident" (Ignored in the book);

the accidental happenstance of Zapruder's film; (Not explained in the book)

the manner in which Jack Ruby got into the Dallas Police Department's basement to shoot Oswald. (Not covered in the book) (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, January 23, 1970)

the paraffin tests of Oswald's hands after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on the afternoon of the assassination. (This, too, is not covered in "Best Evidence.")

It seemed evident to many when his book was published that Lifton's "earthshaking discovery" was the alleged "head surgery" reference in the Sibert and O'Neill report, something about which both Harold Weisberg and the team of Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams had already written.

There is no doubt that, as early as 1966, Mr. Lifton raised a question about the meaning of the "head surgery" remark in the Sibert and O'Neill report.  This is documented in FBI file materials that I have examined.  The questions are, "Where and when did he get The How?" and, "When will he tell us The Who?"

CHAPTER THREE

I DON'T PICK BRAINS, I EAT THEM

Mr. Lifton took umbrage at the following paragraphs in my informal critique of his work on Compuserve:

"If Lifton had originally set out to prove his "Best Evidence" scenario, why did he spend 14-15 years prying information and ideas out of other researchers, pretending all the while that he had some great secret which he would never agree to reveal?  The reason is that he had nothing.  This semi-mythical manuscript which he told people he was working on (the one he would not even show to a staff attorney on the HSCA, even though he could have been assured that its contents would not be disseminated) could not have contained anything more than a pedestrian rehasing of a well-covered area which, by the late-1970's, many found just plain boring."

"I believe Lifton reached a dead end until his agent persuaded him that he could sell a book cast in terms of a personal odyssey through the wilderness."

"If Lifton had this theory nailed down when he first found his agent, why did it take him nearly three years to rewrite his original manuscript?  That manuscript would have been pure gold!  It would not have required the addition of "the personal touch."  If it needed work in matters of style or syntax, Macmillan would have rewritten the book for him and rushed it into print!"

The history of Mr. Lifton's manuscript was sketched in Chapter One.  There was a misstatement in the first paragraph quoted above:  The manuscript that Mr. Lifton's told people he was working on during the years prior to 1975 was not "semi-mythical"; it was an outright, full-fledged lie.

Aside from "the big secret", Mr. Lifton for years maintained a pretense of being hard at work on a book manuscript when, in fact, he was not.

"I have been working, day in and out, and making solid progress generating typescript." (Lifton, David.  Letter to Sylvia Meagher, March 17, 1969)

Compare this, however, with what he told an interviewer as the third edition of his book went public:  "It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

Lifton told Meagher he was writing a section of his manuscript that would "blast away at the performance of the WC staff." (Lifton, David.  Letter to Sylvia Meagher, March 27, 1969)

"It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

"My work is progressing very nicely.  I am so excited over portions of this manuscript that I sometimes have trouble getting a full night's sleep."  (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 2, 1969)

"It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

"I have hundreds of pages behind me. . ." (Lifton, David.  Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 2, 1969)

"It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

"The manuscript is based on evidence, much of it new, but all of high pedigree and legitamacy [sic].  The inferences from evidence are very carefully made.  Now, as regards political matters: the political superstructure that one places on an operational substructure is largely a function of the evidence, and the facts." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 7, 1969)

"I have told a few people that I am writing a manuscript.  No one who is on the grapevine, however, knows the specifics that I told you in the telephone conversations we had back in January and February." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 7, 1969)

"It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

It was Sylvia Meagher's understanding, based on previous conversations and letters, that Mr. Lifton felt his basic case was "coherent and conclusive."  Although she would not agree to assist him in the writing of his work, she offered to help Lifton resolve any uncertainties that might be plaguing him, were he to deal with her candidly. (Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to David Lifton, August 12, 1969)

Lifton responded: "[T]he basic case is coherent and complete.  What still remains to be done?  Basically, what remains to be done is the writing of sections of exposition which, for the most part, have already been researched."  (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 31, 1969)

"It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript." ("His J.F.K. Obsession: For David Lifton, The Assassination is a Labyrinth Without End", Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1988, Magazine, p. 20)

Either Lifton was telling Meagher the truth about his manuscript in progress, or he was simply prevaricating, or he was being duplicitous for some ulterior purpose.  His representations of the subject areas of his work certainly do not correlate in the main with the subject, substantive contents, and major theme or theses of his book.

A Question of Legitimacy
------------------------
In "Best Evidence" it is not only the chronology of his philosophical musings about the Warren Commission's honesty and integrity (or lack of same) that Mr. Lifton has reconstituted and woven into a fictitious autobiographical construct; the same conclusion obtains with regard to his analysis of the substance of the evidence.

Mr. Lifton writes in "Best Evidence" about his reaction upon reading the first critical appraisal of the Warren Report to receive widespread media attention:

"I first read Inquest in June 1966.  I thought Epstein was wading in very deep waters when he extended his "political truth" concept to the deliberate falsification of the Kennedy autopsy."  (Chapter 4)

And later in the book, he ridicules the notion that the autopsy pathologists' testimony could have been untruthful:

"To believe that Humes' testimony was false, one had to believe that a navy commander would deliberately lie, risk criminal charges, and bluff the Chief Justice of the United States." (Chapter 6)

Compare, however, Lifton's diametrically opposed contemporary view:

"I consider the entire Bethesda autopsy result to be incorrect and *fraudulent*.  It is unfortunate but true that those who argue for a rearward hit in the President's head, although they concede the Bethesda autopsy to be false in other areas (like the first shot exiting at the throat) assume that in this one area, possibly, the doctors aren't lying "that much", and that possibly the exit wound on the head shown in the artist's drawing does exist." (Lifton, David.  Memorandum re: Head Snap Phenomenon and Zapruder Film Frame Sequence, March 20, 1967)(Emphasis added)

"The double-head-hit theorists thus invoke Bethesda autopsy descriptions of the head to find an exit wound for a rearward entering bullet.

"I believe the Parkland Hospital description, only, on this point.  I do not accept the Bethesda autopsy." (Lifton, David.  Memorandum re: Head Snap Phenomenon and Zapruder Film Frame Sequence, March 20, 1967)

What Lifton wrote in March 1967 is completely at odds with what his book alleges he was thinking at the time.

"The Case for Three Assassins" (The January 1967 Ramparts Article)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Three Assassins" was an able synopsis of the Kennedy assassination controversy as it stood in late 1966.  It is not my purpose to review the details of that controversy.  Rather, I raise the subject of Lifton's only previously published work on the assassination because it stands in astonishing contrast with his later work, "Best Evidence," where Lifton gives an account of the progress of his research and theory that is grossly inconsistent with the contemporary published work.

As late as mid-October 1966, Lifton could still say, "I believe at least two men were shooting, and probably several more than three from about three different locations." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, October 13, 1966)  In "Three Assassins", Mr. Lifton argued for a crossfire scenario in Dealey Plaza, and accepted as true that both the President and Texas Governor John Connally had been struck by shots from the rear, as well as from in front of the limousine.  Yet, according to "Best Evidence", by the time Mr. Lifton wrote and published "Three Assassins" in Ramparts, he was well on his way to developing the "trajectory reversal" theory that is central to the body swipe/alteration thesis of his book, not a hint of which is to be found in the Ramparts article.  The inconsistency is not completely lost upon Mr. Lifton, because he does fumble over it for two or three pages in his book, finally conjuring up the lame excuse that he did not consider the senior management of Ramparts (Warren Hinckle and Robert Scheer) smart enough for him to explain his theory to them.  Who among us is indeed worthy?  The key question, however, is what did Mr. Lifton find so good about the evidence upon which he relied in "Three Assassins" that soured for him by the time he wrote "Best Evidence?"  It is this strange metamorphosis in either the evidence or himself that Mr. Lifton declines to elaborate, even as he disparages other assassination critics for holding views similar to those he originally expressed.

In "Three Assassins", Lifton accepted that both Kennedy and Connally sustained wounds to their backs during the shooting, and he posited at least two gunmen firing from behind the presidential limousine, while also arguing for shots to Kennedy's head and throat from at least one assassin firing from in front, i.e., the grassy knoll.  In "Best Evidence", Lifton ignored Connally's wounds and theorized that Kennedy was not shot in the back after all, the wound was artificially inflicted by plotters.

In "Three Assasssins", Lifton cited and discussed the testimony of Glenn Bennett, a Secret Service agent riding in the follow-up car behind the President who saw the second shot hit him, in support of both the existence and location of the President's back wound, never providing any inkling that Bennett's testimony and written report could be doubted. (Lifton, David and Welsh, David. "The Case for Three Assassins, Ramparts, January 1967, p. 82 [hereinafter, "Three Assassins"])  Furthermore, Lifton pointed to the holes in the President's suit jacket and shirt as corroborative of the back wound's location. (ibid.)  In "Best Evidence", Lifton branded Bennett a liar and part of the conspiracy; he insinuated that Bennett's role in the plot was to provide a false Secret Service cover story for the phony back wound.  Furthermore, the holes in the President's clothing were now deemed fake.

Examining the Warren Report's "single-bullet theory", i.e., that one shot pierced both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, Mr. Lifton discussed the bullet fragments embedded in Connally's wrist and thigh. (Three Assassins, pp. 84-85)  In "Best Evidence" this evidence is ignored.  Mr. Lifton asserts that all of the ammunition allegedly recovered by investigators had been planted.

The Ramparts piece cast suspicion on Dr. James Humes for burning the original draft of his autopsy report. (Three Assassins, pp. 81, 91).  "Best Evidence" exonerates Dr. Humes as an honest guy.

In Ramparts, Mr. Lifton conceded, "The fact that the Parkland doctors observed no entry wound there [on the rear of the President's head] does not mean that it did not exist, and it is conceivable that a hit from the rear occurred." (Three Assassins, p. 90)  [And notice the similar view Lifton expressed three months after the publication of the article: "It is possible that the doctors at Parkland missed a rear entrance wound on the head.  This is generally conceded.  For example, no Parkland doctor testified to right temporal entrance wounds. . . ." (Lifton, David.  Memorandum re: Head Snap Phenomenon and Zapruder Film Frame Sequence, March 20, 1967)]  In "Best Evidence", however, what was once conceivable became impossible, and the impossible (creation of a false entrance wound after-the-fact) became both conceivable and lucrative.

In 1967, Mr. Lifton pointed to the Warren Commission's "consistent failure" to call witnesses who thought shots came from the knoll.  (Three Assassins, p. 93)  From at least 1980 through the present, however, the Warren Commission has been okay with him.

In a survey for Ramparts of the eyewitnesses who thought that one or more shots were fired from the grassy knoll, Mr. Lifton did pick up the testimony of Paul Landis, Jr., another agent riding in the follow-up car ("I heard what sounded like the report of a high powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder."), and presidential aide David Powers ("My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead ... )(Three Assassins, p. 97), so it is clear that he studied the testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses who heard shots from either direction, including those who thought that all or some came from behind the presidential limousine.

Was Three Assassins replete with factual errors?  Did someone check the many citations to the official record in that article and find them innaccurate or nonexistent?  And, which of the abovementioned points from the article are less valid today than they were twenty-six years ago?  Upon what grounds?

Mr. Lifton requests our confidence and belief in his explanation that he really didn't mean it; while he was working on bringing Three Assassins to publication, he was actually developing a completely different theory of the case.  I do not accept what I call his "split personality" hypothesis.

He says in the Compuserve essays, "By the end of December 1967, I not only had a case that the wounds were different in two areas of the body, but I had the beginnings of a theory as to when and where the body had been intercepted -- on the east coast, at Bethesda, in connection with the events surrounding the ambulance chase."

As we have seen, Mr. Lifton was thinking about many areas concerning the assassination.  We have also seen, to some extent, that the views he held then were radically different from the views he *says* he held then in his book.  This point will be further developed later.  There is no doubt that, in late 1966, Lifton asked the FBI about the head surgery remark in the Sibert and O'Neill report.  The iron facts are, however, that the theory Lifton claims is his own was first published by others, and that he did not find the witnesses who were key to the version presented in his book until 1979.

The "Sources" listing at the end of his book, revealing that many of his interviews are dated 1978 or later, implies that much of his formulation of the "Best Evidence" theory is based on interviews with witnesses who were either first identified by the HSCA or whose military orders not to talk were not lifted until the HSCA investigation.

In the Compuserve essays, Mr. Lifton explains the progress of his research according to what he terms "Areas A and B."   While Mr. Lifton sunk deeper into the quagmire between "A" and "B", trying to figure it all out, the body alteration theory was first published by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams in an article for the September/October 1975 issue of Skeptic magazine, excerpted from their unpublished manuscript, "Murder From Within," a fact that is nowhere acknowledged in "Best Evidence."  The Newcomb/Adams thesis was precisely that advanced by David Lifton in his book, i.e., the alteration of the wounds beetween Parkland and Bethesda.  Like Lifton, only sooner,  Newcomb and Adams posited a high level plot implemented by the Secret Service.

At the very least, one would have expected to see Mr. Lifton report the impact that this Skeptic article had on his research, any fault that he found with its evidence or logic, some evaluation of his conversations with either Newcomb or Adams (surely he must have found the time to call them before he completed his unpublishable first draft in August 1976).  .  After all, hadn't he felt "isolated" with his terrible secret all those years?  Didn't he want some company?

The subject of "changes in the size and shape of the wounds" is not original to David Lifton.  Previous authors wrote extensively about the apparent discrepancies between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the wounds.

About "evidence" that the body was intercepted.  Lifton says he discovered the "ambulance chase" in 1967 and knew that "something happened at Bethesda."  This is what he calls his "Area A."  He discovered nothing except a group of witnesses, dramatis personae minor, whose stories (when they were able to remember anything at all) contradicted each other so wildly that they made no sense.

He claims that by February 1971, as he was "soliciting Dr. [Cyril] Wecht's help in connection with my work," he already had formulated "a series of lengthy memoranda" which, as it turned out, "correspond exactly to what is in Best Evidence" chapter by chapter in "many key areas."  It is noteworthy that he points to material he prepared after the termination of his dealings with Sylvia Meagher in 1970.  The record of those dealings varies dramatically from what he alleges in his book and strongly implies that, if he did have "the beginnings of a theory", it did not take any concrete form until after that timeframe.  He claims that these memos to Dr. Wecht dealt with:

Alteration of the neck wound (Chapter 11);
The statement in the Sibert and O'Neill report mentioning surgery (Chapter 12);
Alteration of the head wound (Chapter 13);
Trajectory reversal (Chapter 14);
The theory of the pre-autopsy autopsy (Chapter 18)

Mr. Lifton interviewed a number of Parkland Hospital personnel in 1966.  It bears mention that, with only three exceptions, he did not interview any participant in the autopsy until 1978 or later.  The three exceptions were the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. Humes (1966); the photographer, John Stringer (1972); and the radiologist, Dr. John Ebersole (1972).  Mr. Lifton discusses these three interviews in his book.  They make no reference to any observations of the neck wound.  Mr. Lifton relies in chief for his theory of alteration of that wound on another researcher's interview of Ebersole in 1978.  Therefore, prior to the time of the HSCA investigation, Mr. Lifton had nothing except possibly an analysis of official and other published resources, including the confirmation by the Parkland doctors of their Warren Commission testimony.

Chapter 18, dealing with the theory of "the pre-autopsy autopsy," dwells on Lifton's vain search of medical texts for support of his "head surgery" theory.  It relies heavily on the HSCA's published interview with two of the autopsy pathologists (published in 1979), as well as Lifton's consulations with Drs. Michael Baden and Charles Wilber during the late Seventies.  In terms of substance, the chapter contains nothing that was unavailable in  published sources prior to 1979.  It is simply Lifton's own highly conjectural analysis of the Warren Commission testimony, material contained in other assassination books, and his reading of medical textbooks.  By cleaving the post-1978 material from the rest of the chapter, what remains is clearly a rudimentary and inconclusive hypothesis that the parietal wound in Kennedy's head was surgically enlarged to gain access to a brain that Mr. Lifton did not have reason to think was missing until he spoke to Paul O'Connor in 1979.

Most noteworthy in Chapter 18 of "Best Evidence" is Mr. Lifton's passing reference to the fact that, "an earlier version of his manuscript [presumably the one that he completed in 1976 but could not sell] was submitted for review by a prestigious pathologist."  The doctor refused to buy Lifton's theory.  Indeed, "Best Evidence" does not name a single physician who says that a surgically removed and reimplanted brain could have escaped the attention of a pathologist at autopsy.  Living in denial, Lifton turns this fatal shortcoming into another theory:  Humes speaks in riddles that only Lifton can understand, i.e., when describing gunshot damage, Humes really means surgery.  He does not ignore, but pretends to harness in support of his theory, Boswell's statement to the HSCA's forensic pathology panel that, "the dura was completely -- as you can see here -- completely destroyed, practically."  (7 HSCA 247)

Mr. Lifton did not complete any kind of manuscript until August 1976, before "Area B" sprang to mind.  According to Mr. Lifton's own chronology, none of the chapters to which he refers were written until after he received his book contract at the end of 1978.

Mr. Lifton leaps forward to his set of "1979 discoveries," after the HSCA investigation, and well after he received his book contract.  He "discovered" that something happened in Dallas before takeoff.  This is what he calls his "Area B."  Again, he discovered nothing that he did not make happen himself, and his interpretation of events has been hotly contested.

Lifton asserts that Dennis David's account of the arrival of one casket at Bethesda before the arrival of another meant that "the Dallas casket was empty."  Assuming arguendo David's recollections were accurate, he did not know what was contained in those caskets.  That is Lifton's assumption.  On that, and O'Connor's recollections -- which Mr. O'Connor has since modified in part, but which also have been contradicted by other witnesses involved in the autopsy -- Mr. Lifton leaps to the conclusion that the body was placed in a different casket before Air Force One took off from Love Field in Dallas.  This is his self-proclaimed "Air Force One Insight."

The question remains, what was Dave Lifton doing during all those years that he was bluffing people with his non-existent manuscript about a non-existent secret?  As Mr. Lifton's Compuserve essays and the later chapters of this study make clear, he was canvassing the research community for information, ideas, or theories to incorporate in his work.  He would tell people that, while he could not disclose to them what he was working on, if they would share their information with him, he would put it in his book.

In all, it appears that Mr. Lifton, either on his own or with the help of others, amassed a number of ideas and theories that he could not tie together, let alone prove, until he obtained a commitment from a publisher.  During the ensuing year or more that he spent writing the book, he struggled to make it all work for him.

The flimsiness of Lifton's support for the "Best Evidence" scenario, the careful juxtaposition of interview excerpts to make them seem more persuasive than they actually are, his near total dependency on HSCA-developed sources, and the obvious haste with which the later chapters of the book are formulated, relative to the earlier portion of the book, all tend to the conclusion that Lifton had an urgent need for cash.

David Lifton says in the Compuserve essays, "Best Evidence presents a radical approach to the evidence in the Kennedy assassination ... one which, if there was a special prosecutor, could provide a valuable roadmap for a new investigation."  We shall come to understand that, by "radical approach to the evidence," what he really means is, "I ignore what I don't like."

Of more immediate interest, however, is why didn't he give his roadmap to the old investigation, i.e., the House Select Committee on Assassinations?  He seems to say in his book that, just as with Ramparts, it's because they weren't smart enough. Judging from the recollections of one former HSCA staff member, however, Mr. Lifton may have withheld his alleged secrets and his unpublished manuscript in pursuit of his own very different agenda.

During the planning stages of the HSCA investigation, senior staff attorneys became interested in conducting a limited dialogue with the Warren Commission critics.  In early 1977, Kevin Walsh was a staff researcher whose responsibilities included advising his colleagues on the critics' work.  Because he was previously familiar with the case, Walsh was asked to submit the names of discreet individuals who would best be able to give the attorneys useful in-person briefings. The plan was to invite them to the Committee's offices for "discussions of the evidence with an eye toward planning our course of investigation."  Walsh saw this as "a critical opportunity to assist a duly authorized congressional investigation in benefiting from the years of prior scholarship and unofficial investigations."

He says that David Lifton, who stationed himself in Washington during much of the Committee's activities, was "lobbying intensely for an introduction to the staff."  Walsh did not know Lifton well and had only met him for the first time in 1976.  On the recommendation of a well-respected West Coast researcher, however, Lifton got the first opportunity to brief the HSCA staff.  Walsh now recalls it as "the worst mistake I ever made."  He describes what happened:

"The entire J.F.K. Task Force was assembled and also a number of senior counsel from the M.L.K. Task Force. . . . [Lifton] took the stage and launched into his college circuit lecture talking down to some of the best qualified and most experienced detectives and prosecutors Congress had ever employed.  He spoke to the staff as though they were children and would have to prove themselves before he would reveal any sensitive information.  He flat-out declared he had explosive evidence that he was saving for his upcoming book and would only discuss the outline of it when the Committee evidenced that they were serious and knew their basics.  Staff members were furious, and when Mr. Lifton declined to answer several of the first questions, senior staff counsel cancelled the meeting and I was strongly criticized for having brought the man in." (Walsh, Kevin. Memorandum, June 3, 1993)

Walsh attributes the Committee's decision not to go forward with their planned series of briefings by the critics to Lifton's performance, which he calls an "embarrassing disaster."

Lifton omitted all mention of this briefing session from "Best Evidence," while attempting in Chapter 24 to convey a completely contradictory impression of his attitude toward the HSCA:

"I had decided to keep my distance from the Committee because I suspected their motives and methods. . . . I felt I might be used, and didn't want my material discredited . . . But I felt some guilt about the course I was following . . ."

In fact, however, the HSCA did not seek Lifton's advice; he was aggressive in seeking access to them.  It was Lifton, according to Walsh, who was "most persistent" and "immediately available" to receive an audience with the staff.  It might therefore be supposed that Lifton, who had confided his great secret in former Warren Commission attorneys years earlier, would be bursting to tell it to the HSCA.  Lifton, who had spent all those years since 1966 hunting, diagnosing, and assimilating the work of various other researchers, might have been expected to be eager to share his vast store of knowledge with what some people fear was the last official investigation.  Yet, it appears that, when they finally gave him the crucial opportunity, Lifton instead stonewalled them, insulted them, and humiliated his sponsor.   Walsh says the incident had "long-lasting implications for the critics' opportunities" to achieve meaningful input into the HSCA investigation.  Indeed, although I could only look at the situation from the outside, the critics generally did seem to be left out in the cold.

In August 1977, Sylvia Meagher called me and insisted I hold our conversation in the strictest confidence.  She had been invited to submit a memorandum to Professor G. Robert Blakey, the new Chief Counsel to the HSCA who had been hired in June, and to attend a weekend colloquium of several prominent critics with Blakey and members of his staff that September.  She asked me to assist in preparing the memo, but I was to tell no one because Blakey insisted that she sign a secrecy oath as a pre-condition to her participation.  Sylvia had serious misgivings about both the colloquium and the oath itself, but she acquiesced because she did not want to be criticized for withholding her support from an investigation that the critics had worked so hard to achieve.

Although the memorandum was heavily weighted toward problems with the medical evidence, other areas were discussed.  We tacked on a list of 25 questions that I prepared to be submitted to Dr. George Burkley, the former White House physician.  Sylvia sent the memo to Blakey and went down to Washington to attend the September colloquium.

That same month, the House Select Committee's forensic pathology panel convened for the first time, and six members of the panel, accompanied by HSCA staff counsel, met with Drs. Humes and Boswell.  In view of the fundamental significance of the medical evidence to the case as a whole, one might assume that the HSCA staff would have absorbed the critics' insights and suggestions long before then, had they regarded the critics as serious and credible.  (Sylvia was not the only critic to submit concrete proposals for investigating the medical evidence.)  Walsh, on the other hand, believes that the purpose of the September 1977 colloquium was to get the participants to sign non-disclosure agreements. (Walsh, Kevin. Memorandum, June 3, 1993)

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, Sylvia never heard from Blakey or the staff again (at least, not on an official basis).  Immediately upon the conclusion of the HSCA investigation, Blakey released the verbatim transcript of the September 1977 colloquium, obviously to make the point that he had given the critics their say.

Several years later, at my behest, Sylvia inquired of one of her former HSCA contacts, Donald "Andy" Purdy, who was chiefly responsible for developing the medical evidence, what had become of our memo and the list of questions for Burkley.  Purdy told her that he had never been shown the memorandum -- a document solicited from and prepared by one of the most respected Warren Report critics.  This episode, and the already obvious propensity of the HSCA to promote and ridicule some of the more tenuous conspiracy theories, indicated that, whatever Kevin Walsh and others of similar sympathies and goals might otherwise have achieved, after Lifton, the HSCA did not take the critics in a serious vein.

Dr. Burkley consistently refused to grant private interviews to writers and researchers regarding the President's wounds and the conduct of the autopsy.  He died in early January, 1991.

CHAPTER FOUR

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU?  WHY CAN'T YOU SEE HOW SCHOLARLY I AM?

(When Is a Scholar a Scholar?)

"I have a great respect for, and love of scholarship and debate." -- David Lifton (1993)

Jean Hill was one of the eyewitnesses who was standing closest to the presidential limousine during the fatal wounding sequence of the assassination.  In Chapter One of "Best Evidence", David Lifton very quickly glosses over his interview with Jean Hill on November 20, 1965.  He says "she stuck by her story that shots came from across the street from where she was standing."  But in his own contemporary memo of that interview, Mr. Lifton reports that Mrs. Hill specifically denied seeing anyone shoot the President.  Mr. Lifton's book ascribes to her the statement, "She ... characterized the Warren Report as a fraud and a hoax."  In fact, it was Mr. Lifton who used those words, while Mrs. Hill offered him nothing more than epigrammatic statements to deflect his questioning.  (Lifton, David. Phone Call Notes -- Conversation with Jean Hill, November 20, 1965)

In reconstructing his November 30, 1965 meeting with former Warren Commission Assistant Counsel Wesley Liebler, Mr. Lifton indulges in some regrettable dramatization that departs from his contemporary memoir of the discussion both in substance and nuance. He thereby not only alters meaning but also appears to revise the chronology of what is represented as a true account of his experiences.  For example, the possible causes of the backward snap of the President's head during the assassination were raised during the discussion.  In his book, Lifton reports:

"Liebler argued a bit about whether a neuromuscular reaction could have caused this, but he did not press the point."

In his contemporaneous memo of the interview, however, Mr. Lifton reports the exchange this way:

"I briefly discussed the possibility of the head [backward] reaction coming from a muscular reaction, and carefully explained why the neurosurgeon I spoke to ruled that out."  (Lifton, David. "Interview with W.J.L.," November 30, 1965)

This is more than a mere error in attribution.  In his book, Mr. Lifton does not refer to any consultation he had with medical experts on the head snap until the time of his preparation for writing "The Case For Three Assassins" (his Ramparts article) and a meeting with Liebeler that occurred on October 10, 1966, nearly one year later.  Apparently, in his book, Mr. Lifton has finessed some early medical research he performed, but that he cares not to disclose, or else has juxtaposed it with later events.  His disturbing revision of this conversation implies, however, that he received a professional opinion either noncommital or unfavorable to his viewpoint.

Returning to the meeting of November 30, Mr. Liebeler was accompanied by a reportedly attractive young woman named "Willie".  Mr. Lifton writes in his book: "Willie seemed quite impressed with the physics of the argument."  But the self-congratulatory tone of this statement is strikingly at variance with his contemporary memo, which does not quote her as reacting to anything that Lifton said, but instead implies that the woman, who was of foreign extraction and spoke with a thick accent, had difficulty following the back-and-forth between Lifton and Liebeler.

During the discussion, Mr. Lifton's book has Liebeler lighting his pipe, a gesture seemingly reported as though by a novelist to impart quality to his character, but Lifton's contemporary account reads: "Liebeler is now lighting his pipe or cigar (I was too preoccupied with the girl to notice which)."

Was Mr. Lifton's memory of his conversation with Liebeler and the woman any better thirteen-to-fifteen years after the event?  Mr. Lifton, after reviewing his files much sooner, seemed to say no in a letter to Sylvia Meagher dated June 24, 1969: "I'd forgotten many of those quotes he said to me, even the incidents themselves."

Mr. Lifton's "Best Evidence" contains hundreds of citations to a public record that was and remains available to other researchers.  In large measure, he also cites to his personal telephone or in-person interviews with witnesses, almost all of which in the years after 1965 were recorded on tape.  These remain his personal property and he has not released them.  There seems nothing wrong or unusual about that.  Without meaning to offer any direct comparison, William Manchester did hundreds of hours of interviews in preparing his book, "The Death of a President."  These remain sequestered and subject to his exclusive control.  Other authors and journalists also prefer to exercise dominion over their research materials, even long after their finished product has seen the public light.

Since the essential theories and conclusions of "Best Evidence" rest heavily upon Mr. Lifton's own interviews, however, he requires his readers to implicitly trust in the accuracy and selectivity with which he reproduces quotations from them, this notwithstanding his lack of formal journalistic credentials or any previous reputation as a nonfiction author.  Like other readers of "Best Evidence," I do not have access to his tapes.  As if the Jean Hill and Wesley Liebeler examples were not reason enough, it accordingly seems fair and appropriate that we examine the degree of care and fidelity to the facts exercised by Mr. Lifton in the use of quotations that are otherwise verifiable, as such examination may bear upon the reliability and trustworthiness of his book.

Mr. Lifton reports in his Compuserve essays that, before we appeared together in Chicago, he "didn't really care whether Feinman agreed with my body-tampering theory or not," but that he was merely curious about my beliefs.  He has me stating a theory of the wounds that he implies was in accord with the official (i.e., Warren Commission) version.  Then, according to him, Lifton just happened to call the Midwest Symposium organizer, and just happened to mention my alleged statements.  He says that the organizer wanted to "yank" me from the debate, but that "I defended Feinman's presence on the panel."  In other words, Lifton asks his readers to accept that I was on the medical panel only at his sufferance.

As will presently become obvious, Mr. Lifton, knowing that he was about to appear on a platform with a serious individual -- not the the kind of stage performer and media-hyped celebrity that he has become, but a trial lawyer who knows the evidence as well or better than he does -- was afraid that he might finally be exposed as a quack.  So, he called and he taped, and when I told him what I thought about "Best Evidence", he shivered and he shook.  Then he went to the coordinator to insinuate that I ought to be removed from the panel.

To successfully hunt prey, one must first learn its habits.  Just as important, one must learn to wait.  The prey may temporarily vacate its habitual feeding ground; it may hibernate; it may resort to camouflage; it may even decide to mount a preemptive attack.  The hunter must be prepared for either eventuality.  Modern technology has neither improved upon nor vitiated these ancient truisms; it is merely harnessed to their service.

Despite the winter, Sunday night, March 21, 1993 was the kind of night for which God and Howard Johnson invented the rich flavor of chocolate ice cream.  That night, David Lifton, having exhausted my patience fourteen years earlier, and having given me a two-year respite since his last call, telephoned me to chat about our forthcoming appearance on April 3 at a panel debate in Chicago with representatives of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) over the medical evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy.  I expected him to call, only I did not know when.

This is the story of how David Lifton stuck his head in the noose I prepared for him.

We had last seen each other at the ASK Symposium in Dallas in October, 1992, and as a follow-up to our encounter I had sent him a recently released document and an analysis that I had written in September.  The document was a February 1965 report by former Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, one of the three pathologists who performed the Kennedy autopsy, to his Commanding Officer at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Maj. Gen. William A. Blumberg.  My analysis began by pointing to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the sequestration of this long-sought memorandum.  More than one researcher, including this writer, had filed FOIA requests for the document with the AFIP shortly after its existence was revealed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations.  The AFIP did not then have the Finck Memo because, it now seems, it was never part of any official AFIP file.  Finck wrote his memo and sealed it in a manila envelope bearing the inscription, "To be opened only by General Blumberg."  After Blumberg died in 1985, his widow transferred the private papers he kept at home to the AFIP, at which time the sealed envelope was discovered by an archivist among Blumberg's other possessions.

Here are some excerpts from my analysis of the Finck memo:

         "2.   According to Finck, they didn't wait for him to begin the autopsy, so the real story could be what took place before his arrival.  Finck's statement that by his arrival at 8:30 pm the chest cavity had been opened and the heart and lungs removed is in direct conflict with other witness statements that the Y-incision was done much later.  Recall Lifton's interview with Ebersole in 1972 as mentioned in his book, and Art Smith's interview with Ebersole in 1978, as well as other witness statements interspersed in Best Evidence and High Treason 2 (notably Captain Karnei in the latter reference).  Note his statement that X-rays of the chest had been taken, as well as the head.  Given their alleged initial understanding of the wounds, they would have no reason to X-ray and open the chest cavity unless the back wound had already been noted or they were considering the possiblity, advanced by the Parkland doctors, that a bullet coursed downward into the chest of Kennedy after entering his throat."
            ....

		"It may be this [head] photo was posed to mislead or just one segment in a series of photos that, if viewed in the entirety, would have conveyed a fuller appreciation of the situation.  Likewise, the X-ray showing frontal bone removed. . . ."
            ....

         "12.  Photo of internal aspect of occipital wound.  Where is it? It's my belief that this is what has become known as Fox #8, which . . . is habitually reprinted in books in portrait rather than landscape orientation, and I am willing to concede this point to Finck and the Warren Commission apologists."
           ....

          "14.  Note the clear contradiction: At first he said that when he came in the chest had been opened.  Here he says: "The President's family insisted to have only the head examined.  Later the permission was extended to the chest."  This is the real story, which lost its context in the HSCA excerpts.  Either he's making this up as he goes along, or he's relating instructions conveyed to him that allegedly were given earlier than his arrival time.  If this were so, the incident reported by Sibert and O'Neill in their investigative insert (which makes no mention of Finck) happened before Finck's arrival and they knew about the back wound before Finck was there, and Roy Kellerman lied to the Warren Commission. . .

          ...."

         "17.  Harold Weisberg correctly points to a conflict between Finck's report and his Shaw testimony regarding the limitation of scope.  He testified he was ordered not to dissect the neck.  Harold would also agree, I gather, that Finck's testimony referred only to X-rays of the head that had been taken before his arrival, not to X-rays of the chest as well.  The key here is that Finck's request to mark the protocol incomplete was entirely appropriate, and if the allegation that the Kennedys had restricted the scope of the autopsy were true, Galloway and Humes should have had no objection.  Harold established previously that the authorization form contained no limitation.  Absent any confirmatory statement from Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, now the only living witness, I conclude that this whole business of assigning responsibility to the family is a lie, and my feeling is that J. Edgar Hoover was of the same opinion."

       ....

          "24.  Turning to Finck's single-spaced summary, which is dated seven days earlier than his transmittal memo to Blumberg.  Note the following with respect to the upper back wound:  "It was stated that this was an entrance."  This is in the single-spaced version, but in the double-spaced version, "I stated that this was an entrance."

       ....

          "25.  Further in neither the double-spaced draft (?) summary nor the report itself, does he remark upon any examination of the adrenals.  "I was told that the Kennedy family first authorized the autopsy of the head only and then extended the permission to the chest."  This clarifies and confirms my earlier impression.  As Harold notes, he has no personal knowledge of the alleged restrictions."

        ......

Among my conclusions were these: 

           "4.   There exists in the public record of this autopsy a serious anomaly between Sibert and O'Neill's main report and their investigative insert pertaining to Burkley's attempt to limit the autopsy, in that their main report alludes to Dr. Humes' locating the back wound only "during the latter stages,." a point with which the testimony of Kellerman is in agreement.  The gravity of this anomaly is accentuated by Finck's allegation in his report that the chest had already been opened by the time of his arrival at Bethesda.  The story just doesn't gel.  Upon reflection, some of the most striking inconsistencies among interviewed witnesses to this event focus upon
the examination of the chest cavity.

[Note: The "investigative insert" to which I referred was a field office memorandum filed separately but concurrently with their main narrative report on the autopsy by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill in the Baltimore Field Office (FBI #62-117290-878X, November 26, 1963).  In that memo, the agents reported that Admiral Burkley, the White House physician, "questioned any feasibility to do a complete autopsy to obtain the bullet which had entered the President's back."  Secret Service agents Kellerman and Greer had testified to the Warren Commission that the back wound was not discovered until late in the autopsy, and the FBI agents' main narrative seemed on its face to corroborate that testimony.]

          "5.   In further comparison with Sibert and O'Neill, Finck's report reveals nothing on the formulation of any conclusions, no matter how tentative, as to trajectories at the time of autopsy.  Finck doesn't say at any point that a path leading to the throat wound was considered, or that any explanation -- even a tentative one -- was advanced for what happened to the bullet that entered the President's back.  He doesn't say what they made at the time of the autopsy of a bruise at the top of the lung or the hemhorraging he noticed in or about the pleural space, although Humes and Boswell told Specter in their preparatory interview before testifying that they attributed this at the time to the tracheotomy.  He makes no mention of bruising in the strap muscles (or the alleged lack of contusions at the sites of the chest drainage tubes and intravenous incisions).  This report would have us believe that the question of what happened to the bullet was simply left hanging.  Even in the face of their assumed inability to find either a missile or a path for the missile that entered the back, their senior officers refused to permit a complete autopsy, including dissection of the neck, while Lee Harvey Oswald was living to stand trial.  This is very damning.  Even more disturbing.  Col. Finck does not seek any dispensation for signing a false report despite his clear and unequivocal knowledge that the autopsy was incomplete, and despite the denial of his request to see the clothes.  Aside from the tepid resistance he claims to have offered, he does not imply that anyone twisted his arm, threatened him, or so much as merely ordered him to sign the report against his will."

          "11.  What Finck's various omissions tell us, and what I think he is perhaps relating here, is that he will not personally vouch or be held responsible for whatever he wants us to think may have transpired before his arrival.  His alleged understanding is that X-rays and photos had been taken; the brain had been removed; the chest cavity had been opened, and the heart and lungs also removed.  Allegedly, they haven't found a bullet, and they require his assistance in assessing the situation, but they won't permit him to perform a full examination to that end.  It would be interesting to gauge his response to the question why he believes his presence was required at all, and what his role actually consisted of? . . . ."

In early January 1993, I learned that I would be a member of a panel representing the government's critics in the Chicago debate, and that David Lifton would also appear.  I immediately suggested to all my co-panelists that we confer on a coordinated strategy.  The only one to respond affirmatively to this idea was Dr. Cyril Wecht.  The discussions in which I was involved among and between the co-panelists did not actually begin until March.  Privately,  I had some misgivings about Lifton's participation.  I discussed these with other interested parties, who appeared to have independently arrived at the same opinion, i.e., that Lifton's "Best Evidence" theory would offer a vulnerable target against which the JAMA participants could focus their attack on the critics.  (As it turned out, none of us had much to worry about; the JAMA panel seemed to have a limited grasp of the facts.)  I did not disclose my views to the organizer of the Midwest Symposium, Douglas Carlson, since it was clear to me that he had already extended a commitment to Lifton.

In early March, I called my colleague and co-panelist, Wallace Milam (also a longtime friend and associate of Lifton and a closet-adherent of the "Best Evidence" theory) to ask about his presentation.  Wallace was in the process of putting the finishing touches on a marvelous video he planned to present in rebuttal to one that was being sold by Dr. Michael West, a JAMA panelist.  He indicated that Lifton wanted to play a tape of his 1966 interview with Dr. James Humes.  He told me that he wished to speak first on our panel, and that David Lifton wanted to follow him.  Wallace said, "Everyone is wondering what Roger Feinman is going to talk about."  I feigned indifference to the order of speakers, though I was secretly pleased -- amused that few people alive knew my views (therefore making it difficult for the other side to prepare to debate me, as Dr. John K. Lattimer graciously confirmed in the moments before the debate got underway), and pleased that David wanted to go before me.  All that I was willing to say for the record was that, in general, I planned to speak about the credibility of the autopsy pathologists.  I did not want any additional details to get back to Lifton until I heard from him directly, as I was sure I would.  Besides, whatever Lifton planned to present at the Symposium, I would be in a position to instantly adjust my remarks to avoid any repetition of his points.

In view of our impending joint appearance, some personal contact between Lifton and me was clearly necessary.  In May and October, 1992, JAMA had published interviews with the Kennedy autopsy pathologists which seriously damaged the thesis of Lifton's book, "Best Evidence", to wit, that they told the truth about what they saw and did that night, either acquiescing in or oblivious to the fact that they had been deceived by the clandestine infliction and surgical alteration of Kennedy's wounds between the time the body left Parkland and the time it arrived at Bethesda, and by the extraction of bullets from his body prior to autopsy.  The pathologists not only repudiated the theory, but also made statements seriously contradicting their own previous public and private pronouncements about the autopsy.  I half-expected Lifton to tell me that he was prepared to abandon the central theories of "Best Evidence" and to admit that the conduct of the pathologists themselves -- not some unknown plotters of a conspiracy external to the morgue -- merited the closest scrutiny.  I was interested in knowing how Lifton proposed to reconcile his theories with the obvious import of these interviews.  I was fairly confident that he could not.

Although I had not given any thought to David Lifton or his book for many years, based on previous personal contacts and the oral reminiscences of other critics, I had the impression that Lifton, for whatever reason, tended to solicit ideas from others before stating his own.  I also knew that he tape records at least some of his phone calls.  Finally, I knew that Lifton practiced what I call "the doctrine of pre-emption", one of whose corollaries is to tell the other guy's story and knock it down before the other guy can even open his mouth to speak (I shall presently explore another corollary of the same doctrine).  He also jealously guards his flank.  With events threatening to overtake Lifton and his book, I knew that his call would come, so I waited while attending to my own affairs.

Despite my confidence, when Mr. Lifton did call on March 21, I was slightly taken aback by the change I sensed in him.  I recalled that, years earlier, he had seemed better able to express himself fluidly; now he seemed to have difficulty speaking in whole sentences and forming coherent questions, certainly more distracted.  He stumbled over words, and frequently seemed to lose his train of thought.  We began by comparing notes on JAMA's most recent article on the Kennedy assassination, and our understanding of the format of the debate.  I found myself having to repeat myself to him several times to get a point across.

Then Lifton changed the subject to our substantive remarks at the debate:  "Okay, well, look, um, one of the things I thought I wanted to open up for discussion, which -- uh, I was kinda -- I'm trying to construct my talk, and I was wondering, um, I was wondering if we could just s-swap notes a little bit.  I - I know what Wallace is doing, and I have no idea what you're doing, and I have no idea what Cyril's doing, and I know that I definitely want to come after Wallace's video, and I was curious what, y'know what your take on all this --- "

I got the idea.  "What I want to focus on is the personal credibility of the autopsy pathologists, and just that aspect," I said.

"Wha - What do you mean by personal credibility of the autopsy pathologists?"

I explained, "The contradictions in the statements they've made over the years and their testimony. There are a number of different issues. Why? Does that conflict with what you want to do?"

"Oh, no.  Not necessarily ... I-uh-ah-I asked because,um -- who told me? Uh, Wallace said to me or who is it? Aguilar said to me that you were surfacing something brand new, um, that you had from years ago, and, I was, you know, curious what area you were gonna bring in, and then I was going to tell you what I was going to do."

I said, "Yeah."

"Are you surfacing anything brand new that ---?

"It depends ...."

As I expected, Mr. Lifton told me that he wished to focus on what was said in the conversation at the outset of the autopsy that had been reported by Sibert and O'Neill in that brief field memo they filed separately from their main narrative report.  But there was more, as I already had learned from Wallace Milam.  "I'm going to deal with a conversation that I had with Humes in 1966," he said, "which was a better cross-examination than Andy Purdy ever did."

As I listened to the same voice that had become naggingly familiar during the late-1970's, I thought, "Does David have anything left upstairs?  Andy Purdy never examined or cross-examined Humes!"

Although Mr. Lifton has since implied that I "sandbagged" him at the debate, I made it crystal clear to him that I disagreed with his book.  I said, "Of course, we can disagree on conclusions, and it's just as well that we're going to have some diverse viewpoints.  You've made a case in Best Evidence that I don't think anybody can either prove or disprove.  I mean, it's a hypothesis ...  I don't subscribe to it ...."

"Well, I'm curious," Lifton said, "What do you subscribe to?"

I told him, "I think that the autopsy is crooked...."

"What I'm getting at is, you think the autopsy was crooked; as the body lied there [sic] before them, what do you think the body had on it?  Did it show the President as he was seen in Parkland, or does it show the President -- I mean, now, which database does it reflect?"

Objection!  Leading the witness.  Nevertheless, I overruled my own objection and replied, "It may very well have reflected the database that we see in the photographs, but that's an incomplete database, and it's an inconclusive database.  I --

"No, no," Lifton interrupted, "When you mean the photographs, do mean that you believe that when the body was lying there that the back of the head was as pretty and as intact as the rear photograph of the back of the head?"

I had never heard anyone besides Lifton describe the bloodied head of the murdered President as "pretty."  But I was too deeply  into the conversation to back out gracefully.  "No, I think what they probably did was to take the piece of skull with hair on it that Clint Hill described as laying on the back seat of the limousine, and they recuperated that wound for the purpose of that photograph." [Note: Clint Hill's testimony on this point is found at 18H 742, and in his written report at 2H 141.]

"Well, that's reconstruction of it prior to autopsy photography ---."

Lifton was reaching to find a common ground, so I had to cut him off: "Wait a minute!  We don't know when that photograph was taken."  He made no response to this.

"But I mean --- so, um -- I guess I was curious what you thought the body looked like when it was lying there, and I was going to ask you wound-by-wound ---"

I had no patience for this. "Well, let me explain.  I've got a problem with the X-rays.  My problem is from the standpoint of technical authenticitation, I don't think that the House Committee succeeded in authenticating these materials.  The photographs are a different matter.  I'm willing to accept the photographs as genuine only because as a lawyer -- and I know this is going to grate on you based upon what you wrote about in the book --- but I can take the evidence they give us and still argue a case against them.  In other words, I don't have to rely upon a theory that these photographs are fake.  If they are, that would be a phenomenal find, and certainly it would blow the case wide open, but I can take the evidence that they give me and still argue a case against the autopsy."

I sensed some confusion on Lifton's part.  "I don't know which case is 'a case', in other words, if you take the photographs that they give you -- just in a nutshell, because I don't mean to split hairs with you here, but in a nutshell, take the photographs -- what do you think those photographs show about which way he was hit in the head?"

"They don't!  I mean, not conclusively.  For example, they show us a photograph of the anterior-posterior view of the skull, with that semi-circular notch above the forehead, but they don't show us a view from the posterior-anterior.  What's inside that semi-circular notch?  Is there coning or beveling inside?  What does that notch mean?  Also, we don't know how much skull was removed at autopsy before that photograph was taken.  The massive damage to the head, combined with the extensive fragmentation of the bullet, could indicate that, even if the shot came from behind, it was not the kind of ammunition that Oswald was using, so there's an argument right there.

"You can give me that argument, but what do you think happened to Kennedy in Dealey Plaza, based on --- "

Finally! A direct question.  "Oh, my own personal belief is that he was shot from both directions, from both behind and in front, and I think it was exactly as some of the witnesses said:  He was shot in the temple; I think that he was shot first from behind, and then another bullet hit him tangentially from the right front and shot the top of his head off."

"You think he was shot twice in the head?" 

"Yeah."

"And from the rear, where was that entry wound?

"Exactly where Humes placed it."

"Oh, in other words, you buy it that Humes -- you believe in the Humes entry wound in his testimony, his original testimony?"

"Yeah."

"And how come that Humes entry wound wasn't seen in Dallas?"

For an instant, I considered rebutting this oft-repeated innacuracy, but I didn't want to prolong the conversation.  "There could be a number of reasons for that.  It could have been covered with hair or with blood -- any number of reasons for that."

"And where was the exit for that?"

Another leading question, which I decided to deflect:  "It may not have exited.  According to Sibert and O'Neill their original theory was that the extensive fragmentation of the head was caused by the impact of the bullet from behind, and that there was no exit, and that makes very good sense to me based upon the fragmentation of the bullet.  How could any bullet have created that massive damage to the right of the skull?"

We continued fencing, but it was clear that I wasn't going to convince him and he wasn't going to convince me of anything.  As the conversation dragged on, Lifton repeated his view that the back wound was artificial.  I could not agree.  We also spoke about the photograph of the rear of the President's head.  I argued that they were posed rather than faked.  I was surprised to hear Mr. Lifton agree with me, since he has argued in public that these photographs are forgeries.

Then, Lifton told me how he planned to revitalize the "Best Evidence" theory in a sequel.  In his next book, he explained, he plans to augment his theory with a new angle that two of the Parkland Hospital doctors were involved in the plot to alter Kennedy's wounds, and that some of the alteration was done at the Parkland.  Although he named the doctors, I will not repeat his assertions; to do so would only dignify the ludicrous.  Another "clandestine interval?"  As our conversation drew to a close, I tried to convince Mr. Lifton to stick to the evidentiary issues during our debate and avoid the discussion of theories.  To emphasize the point, I followed up our conversation with an electronic mail message.  Nevertheless, I had the distinct feeling of deja vu.

Warren Hinckle of Ramparts had no better luck with Lifton twenty-six years ago:  Hinckle tried to explain to him that "it is necessary to break the ice before you can go swimming in winter."  (Hinckle, Warren.  If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade, G.P. Putnam's Sons; New York: 1974, p. 227)  It made no difference.

Mr. Lifton states in his Compuserve essays that I hid my beliefs from him, and that I somehow implied that I wanted to win a position on some future JFK investigation.  The reader can judge whether or not Lifton has been truthful.  Comparing me to Arlen Specter, however, is the unkindest cut of all.

After our conversation, Lifton called the convener of the Midwest Symposium, Douglas Carlson in an apparent attempt to have me removed from the panel.  Carlson says that Lifton's written account of their conversation lost the flavor of the original:  "He expressed some concerns.  He indicated he thought you might take issue with some of his findings, and that your views might be contrary to his and there wouldn't be uniformity.  I never expected that anyway."  Mr. Carlson did not recall Mr. Lifton defending my presence on the panel.  (Author's interview with Douglas Carlson, May 13, 1993)

As those who were present remember, and the taped record of the event will reveal, Mr. Lifton was prepared with copies of our electronic mail exchanges to protect his work in the only manner he knows how: the false personal attack.

Avoiding a substantive response to the questions and criticisms that I have directed toward his book and its theory of the assassination, Mr. Lifton in his essays persistently seeks to construct an argument that I hit him below the belt in Chicago, and that I have a personal vendetta against him, assumedly based upon some element of jealousy that he has published a book.  This ad hominem approach should have a familiar ring to students both of rhetoric and the history of Germany in the Twentieth Century alike.  Mr. Lifton bases his allegation that I hate him and have attacked him personally on his versions of certain quotations from the Compuserve Politics Forum's message board.  For example, he quotes me as saying:

**"It is correct to say that I do not like David Lifton.... I do not like his methods.  I do not trust his motives.  I do not believe he is objective.  I do not believe he is sincere.  I do not trust him...And, although it might have turned out otherwise, I do not believe that Best Evidence can be taken seriously as a work of scholarship, history, journalism, criticism, or other form of non-fiction."

Mr. Lifton's use of ellipses significantly changed the meaning, color and tone of the the full quote, which was as follows:

"It is correct to say that I do not like David Lifton.  *However, since I only know him through his work on the case or through my personal dealings with him in connection with the case, and not socially, it is the functional equivalent of saying that I do not like his work.*  I do not like his methods.  I do not trust his motives.  I do not believe he is objective.  I do not believe he is sincere.  I do not trust him. *I do not believe he has helped us (quite the contrary, I believe he has hurt us).*  And, although, it might have turned out otherwise, I do not believe that BEST EVIDENCE can be taken seriously as a work of scholarship, history, journalism, criticism, or other form of non-fiction." (emphases supplied to accentuate Mr. Lifton's deletions)

The clear thrust of this passage was this writer's opinion of Mr. Lifton's book and his role in the assassination controversy.

In another example of Mr. Lifton's mangled use of brackets and ellipses to slice and dice a quotation, he completely eviscerated the central point of another of my statements:

**"I sincerely believe that Best Evidence is one of the greatest publishing hoaxes since Clifford Irving's book on Howard Hughes.  The theory of body snatching and body alteration has no merit whatsoever.  I do not believe that [Best Evidence]...could have [been] written...in good faith."

The unexpurgated passage, however, read as follows:

"I sincerely believe that BEST EVIDENCE is one of the greatest publishing hoaxes since Clifford Irving's book on Howard Hughes.  The theory of body snatching and body alteration has no merit whatsoever. *I do not believe that the same man who co-authored "The Case for Three Assassins" in Ramparts could have written BEST EVIDENCE in good faith.  I do not believe that Macmillan exercised responsible judgment in publishing this book without critical analysis and fact-checking venturing beyond its exposure to a libel suit."* (emphasis supplied to accentuate Mr. Lifton's deletions)

Part of the basis for my belief that Mr. Lifton has been pulling our legs, i.e., the dramatic variance between his theory in "Three Assassins" and the one he presents in "Best Evidence" was completely omitted by Mr. Lifton in his misuse of the quote, and he has failed to satisfactorily reconcile his earlier work with the semi-autobiographical account of his research in "Best Evidence."

In this chapter, I have confined my examination to only those quotations or facts alleged by Mr. Lifton in connection with conversations or events that actually occurred, but were completely misreported by a writer who presents himself and his book to the public under the rubric of scholarship.  Regrettably, Mr. Lifton also sees fit to engage in the invention of quotations that were never uttered and events that never occurred.  These will be mentioned in passing during the ensuing portions of this study.

CHAPTER FIVE

ACT OF DESPERATION: "BEST EVIDENCE" AND THE DECLINE OF PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW

"I was particularly revulsed at what I thought were his totally unecessarily [sic] gory treatment of the medical aspects." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, February 13, 1968)(Re: Jim Bishop's book, "The Day Kennedy Died")

It is difficult to separate Lifton's theory of the assassination and his concomitant conclusions about the medical evidence from his reconstruction of what he believes was done to the body of the President and how it was accomplished.  The two areas are inextricably bound together; one predicates the other.  To afford Lifton the full justice he is due, and to illustrate the grand sweep of his design, some abbreviated treatment of this aspect of his book is warranted.

Lifton has always been an advocate of the grassy knoll assassin(s).  His Ramparts piece in 1967 was one of the early "classics" of the genre.  The dilemma which confronted him (and everyone else who has dealt with this evidence) is that, notwithstanding the Zapruder film, the Perry news conference, and abundant eye- and earwitness evidence, umpteen forensic specialists who examined the autopsy X-rays and photos prior to 1981 refused to lend their support to this theory.

It is not a good enough conspiracy theory for David Lifton that Kennedy might have been shot from two directions, or perhaps even from the rear, albeit not from Oswald's alleged perch in the southeasternmost corner window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.  In Lifton's view, Kennedy was shot from one direction only: the front of the limousine (page 349-350) (all page references are to the hard cover edition).

Why this insistence upon rejecting any rear entry wounds?  Lifton's "logic" is that there were no shots fired from the rear because the shots were fired from the front, and because it would be easier to fabricate downward slanting trajectories by adding rear wounds to the President's body later on.  He never explains why the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald required that there be no rear shots, only front shots. (see around page 363)  He is, of course, impressed by the Zapruder film's depiction of a violent backward jerk of Kennedy's head and torso, but fails to explain how this justifies his assumption that there was no hit in the President's back below the neck.

The chief problem that Lifton encountered in attempting to prove his thesis was the discrepancies between the accounts of the Parkland doctors, the accounts of the Bethesda doctors, and what the autopsy photos and X-rays allegedly show regarding the nature of the President's wounds.  In Lifton's world, it is necessary that alteration was pre-planned.  Why did they have to plan to alter the body?   Lifton's "solution" to the crime arose as the expedient method of overcoming the obstacle of the autopsy photography and concluding his personal odyssey.

A reasonable argument can be made that the discrepancies are not so clear cut.  To the presumed chagrin of Mr. Lifton and the Liftonites, the Parkland doctors and nurses are not in unanimity as to how the head wound looked.  According to the Boston Globe, which interviewed many of them in 1981, six were in agreement with the so-called McClelland drawing of a large, gaping wound in the occiput (including McClelland himself) that was first published in Josiah Thompson's "Six Seconds in Dallas."  Six other doctors stated that the autopsy photo that is reproduced as a tracing in the House Committee on Assassinations volumes was consistent with their recollections.  That photo showed no gaping wound in the rear of the skull. ("Dispute on JFK Assassination Evidence Persists Eighteen Years Later," Boston Globe, June 21, 1981, Focus Section)

There was a Parkland doctor who saw something on the skull that Mr. Lifton and his fans erroneously insist no human eye has ever seen.  Dr. Robert G. Grossman, a neurosurgeon, worked next to Dr. Kemp Clark at Kennedy's head.  He told the Boston Globe that he saw two separate head wounds: a large defect in the parietal area above the right ear, and a second, smaller wound located squarely in the occiput.  Grossman suggested that the confusion surrounding the location of the massive head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term "occipital" is used: "There is this ambiguity about what consititutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It's very imprecise."  And, he said, it's possible that his colleagues loosely used the word "occipital" in describing a wound that extended to the back fifth of the head, or that they assumed, without lifting up the head, that the defect did reach the back.  ("Dispute on JFK Assassination Evidence Persists Eighteen Years Later," Boston Globe, June 21, 1981, Focus Section)

Lifton alleges that the rear head entry wound was not fully apparent at first, but was reconstructed in its circumference with the bone fragments received by the pathologists during the late stages of the autopsy.  He himself concedes that, if his theory is correct, the X-rays showing the hole had to have been made after the reconstruction (pp. 533-34), and probably after midnight (p. 526).

This aspect of Mr. Lifton's theory of reconstruction is based upon a tenuous interpretation of the ambiguous remarks made by Humes and Boswell during a colloquy with some members of the HSCA's forensic pathology panel as they examined photographs.  I have studied the transcript of that colloquy numerous times since it was published in 1979.  It is unclear to me whether the pathologists were referring to piecing together the rear entrance wound or the wound which they maintain is an exit on the right-front of the head.  At one point during the transcript, they state unequivocally that the occipital region was otherwise intact at the site of entry.  The matter requires official clarification.

Had the body been altered?

Lifton also generally argues that the main damage to the President's skull was in the occipital region, and some of the top-back was blown off, but the top front was intact.  He argues that the conspirators enlarged the head wound during their removal of the brain for the purpose of extracting bullets.

The problem here is that a number of Mr. Lifton's autopsy witnesses describe the large wound in the head as being in the same posterior location as a number of the Parkland doctors have placed it.  This, after the head was supposedly altered to remove evidence of a front-to-back hit.

For example, radiologist John Ebersole said that when the body was removed from the casket there was a gaping wound to the back of the head, (p. 543) and photographer John Stringer told Lifton that the main damage to the skull was in the occipital. [Stringer's account would appear to agree with both Godfrey McHugh (a "Bethesda witness" and the so-called "Parkland version", although it disagrees with the autopsy photos. (pp. 515ff.)  If the body was altered prior to autopsy, how were Ebersole and Stringer able to view this damage?]

I.	In groping for the unifying theme in this fugue, Lifton found his key in the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, which has come to be known as the Sibert-O'Neill Report.

J.	Lifton became unhinged by the "surgery to the head area" reference in Sibert-O'Neill, which may have been someone's mere offhand (i.e., eyeball) reaction to seeing the wrapping on JFK's head when his body was removed from its Dallas coffin. 

K.	Few of the hundreds of other researchers and writers who have pored over this document ever ascribed any greater significance to this language, but Lifton alleges that it signified to him (as early as 1966) a scheme to alter the President's wounds so as to conceal the true facts of the assassination.  He spent the next fifteen years reasoning from this conclusion, which he dubs "trajectory reversal."

L.	Surgery statement

	1.	Lifton's reliance on the "head surgery" clause in the Sibert and O'Neill report rests on three implicit assumptions:

		a)	an autopsy pathologist made the statement; and

		b)	it was a diagnosis, not a question or an offhand response to some question; and

		c)	it was made truthfully and accurately

	2.	What evidence does he cite that Humes made the surgery remark?  Only J. Edgar Hoover's statement in November 1966 that the agents merely reported "oral statements" made by the autopsy physicians."  Further, Lifton tells his readers that, "the only doctors present at the time the body was removed from the coffin were Humes and Boswell." (Chapter 12)

	3.	The Sibert and O'Neill report defeats him as he clearly proves in the same chapter.  Admirals Kenney, Galloway and Burkley were in the morgue, as were Captains Canada and Stover, all doctors.

	4.	How did Lifton decide that "surgery" really occurred?  He read a passage of Humes' Warren Commission testimony to a neurosurgeon over the phone.  Later, as recounted in Chapter 10, he visited in person with the pseudonymous UCLA neurosurgeon, "Dr. Morris Abrams".  In assisting the doctor's  understanding of the brain lacerations, Mr. Lifton supplied him with the knowledge that two metal fragments were recovered from the forward right side of the head.  But he either omitted to tell "Abrams" or omits to tell us about the passage in Sibert and O'Neill's report pertaining to the extensive metallic fragmentation  (estimated at 40 particles) dispersed throughout the brain.  Furthermore, while he presents the neurosurgeons comments as probative of surgery, Lifton was not dealing with a forensic specialist.

	5.	Lifton attempts to bolster his "surgery" thesis by arguing that Humes (to whom he attributes the surgery remark based on the hearsay public pronouncement of J. Edgar Hoover, see New York Times, November 26, 1966) was told a fragment of skull that had been brought into the autopsy room was "removed," another factoid gleaned from the Sibert and O'Neill report.  Of course, the word "removed" might easily have been a euphemism connoting "blasted out during the shooting."  Aside from Lifton's semantic foolery, however, this purported analysis was thoroughly dishonest because Mr. Lifton knew full well that Sibert and O'Neill reported that skull fragment as having been delivered "during the latter stages of the autopsy," whereas someone reportedly made the surgery remark at the very beginning.

Paul O'Connor

Paul O'Connor was a Navy 3rd Class Petty Officer attached to the National Naval Medical Center as a student medical technician.  Prior to November 22, he had been working in the Bethesda morgue for six months on 24-hour duty.  That meant that he was subject to call at any time.

O'Connor told me last year that, at approximately 2 p.m., he and his partner, James Curtis Jenkins, were in the morgue when the Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, Admiral Calvin Galloway, came in and told them that they would be getting "a very important visitor."  They immediately understood this to mean that President Kennedy's remains were being brought to Bethesda for autopsy.  Galloway also told them that they were confined to the morgue for the duration.  This would be O'Connor's first experience in working with a gunshot victim as a "Med Tech" student at Bethesda. (Author's Interview with Paul O'Connor, October 25, 1992)

Mr. Lifton's account of the same beginnings to O'Connor's story omits his mention of "2 p.m.".  Therein lies a problem, because, since Bethesda time was one hour behind Dallas, if O'Connor is correct, then officials at Bethesda knew the autopsy would be held there almost at the very moment that President Kennedy was being pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark at Parkland Hospital.

My general observations of O'Connor were that he is sincere and truthful to the best of his ability; that he remembers vignettes or anecdotes about the autopsy, some of which he has obviously discussed with other participants; but that he has great difficulty placing the events of that night into temporal or sequential order and context.  Considering the passage of years, this is hardly surprising, neither does it serve to completely discredit his recollections.  It does mean, however, that his statements must be evaluated with great care and caution.

O'Connor says that, at about 8 o'clock in the evening, the back door of the hospital burst open and six men came in carrying a "pinkish gray, nondescript, cheap, shipping casket."

Surgery of the head:

"You know something?  That surgery of the head remark I think started with Sibert or O'Neill.  Now what they meant by that, I don't know, but it seems like it's overridden everything else, and it gets involved -- there was no surgery of any kind.  And I know what surgery looks like.

Q.: Did you hear anyone ask a question like, "Did anyone do surgery to this head?" or was it a definite statement --

A.: There was a question asked somewhat to that effect, but I don't know who asked it, unless it was Humes.  I don't know what he was referring to though."

	3.	He'd have to go out to the supply room to get supplies.

	4.	He went out of the room during X-rays (after measurements).

	5.	O'Connor allegedly told Lifton there were no brains left; the cranium was empty." (p. 601)

	6.	Says there was no brain, just brain tissue.

	7.	The difference between no brain, some brain, or very little brain shatters Lifton's theory, which holds that the brain was surgically removed before the body reached the autopsy.

	9.	The John Ebersole situation is both analogous and illustrative.  He was nominally the radiologist in charge of X-raying the President's body and reading those X-rays.  He told researcher Art Smith in 1978 that the throat wound was sutured at the beginning of the autopsy, but it was also his recollection that the autopsy began at 10:30 pm that night, a clear error that lacks any verification or corroboration and is universally contradicted by other available accounts.  Taken in conjunction with O'Connor's recollection of throat-wound suturing, it becomes more plausible that the throat wound was sutured that night, not when the body arrived but during the course of the autopsy at the direction of Admiral Burkley.  Ebersole, who was in and out of the room as part and parcel of the tedious process of taking the X-rays and then developing them at another area of the hospital, therefore most likely did see a sutured throat wound that night, but is confused as to just when he saw it.  (The writer has been informed that Ebersole was recently interviewed by Dr. David Mantik, another researcher with impressive medical qualifications, and retracted the "suture statement.")

	10.	In similar fashion, O'Connor, who admits that he left the morgue during the taking of preliminary X-rays, and at other times to get supplies, may well be confused as to just when he noticed the nearly empty cranium.

N.	Researcher/writer Jerry Policoff makes the point that, if  O'Connor  says  there  was  no brain, and  he's  right, then the autopsy  doctors  lied.  Lifton can't have it both ways.

O.	James Curtis Jenkins: there  was a brain.  (HT2 92)

P.	Livingstone discusses conflicts in statements of Jenkins and O'Connor re the handling of the body prior to autopsy. (pp. 131-135)

Q.	Wouldn't any alteration scheme attempt to achieve maximal consistency with the observations of the Parkland doctors, incorporating into the plan of action the fact that the Parkland doctors did not turn the President over on his back?  (Would this argument mitigate in favor of an after-the-fact ad hoc response to the situation, and against Lifton's before-the-fact pre-planned scenario? Yes.)  Moreover, the Parkland doctors would have to be carefully questioned to test their observations -- which, in fact, they were, both by the Secret Service before it sent the "official" autopsy report to the FBI, and by Specter, before Humes testified.

Therefore, any changes in the body could not create conflicts between the "Dallas evidence" and the autopsy evidence -- only the interpretation of that evidence as to the source and direction of the shots.  Therefore, would any changes in the body be necessary?  To put the question another way, was the conflict between Parkland and Bethesda a real conflict or a false conflict?

T.	The implication of Lifton's theory is that alteration/reconstruction of the wounds and the concomitant planting of bullet shells at the scene of the crime (and of a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, see p. 345) would be necessary.  They would have advance knowledge of how President Kennedy would actually be hit by their infallible marksmen, and what alterations to the President's body would be needed to conceal the true facts of the crime.  Lifton does not conceive of ad hoc improvisation (pages 362-64).

U.	One assumption implicit in this argument is that Lifton's conspirators were willing to gamble that a front shooter would hit his target, and that they never intended to shoot President Kennedy from other than in front.  A further assumption is that the conspirators concluded it would be more desirable for them to fabricate downward trajectories than for a rear shooter to inflict them during the assassination.

V.	The Main Weaknesses of Lifton's Theory

W.	Texas Governor John Connally was unquestionably struck from the rear.  "Lifton makes no attempt to explain Connally's wounds within the terms of his theory.  He does not seem to notice the problem at all." (Powers, Thomas and Alan Rich, "Robbing the Grave", New York Magazine, February 23, 1981, p. 46)  Would Lifton have us presume that Governor Connally volunteered to take a near fatal shot from behind in order to assist the conspirators in persuading the world that someone was indeed firing from the rear?  Or, perhaps the assassins, throwing caution to the winds, chose to shoot Connally from the rear, but not JFK, to that same end, supremely confident in their ability to hit one but not the other by mistake.  What if whoeever shot Connally (assuming as James Reston, Jr. does, that he was a deliberate target) had missed and instead shot Kennedy by mistake?

X.	Another, even more pivotal weakness of Lifton's trajectory reversal idea (p. 343) is that it rests upon the assumption that the three bullet shells which were found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository near the window from which the Warren Commission alleged that Oswald fired the shots were planted by conspirators, and upon the further assumption that the plan called for the number of wounds inflicted during the shooting to correlate perfectly with the number of allegedly planted bullet shells.

Y.	This, however, is not necessarily so:  If more shells existed than wounds, it could be explained away that one or more of the shots fired had missed their target.  If, however, less shells existed than wounds "attributable" to them, then the wounds would have to be correlated in such a way as to accommodate the number of shells.  Moreover, Lifton makes no effort to address the weighty issue whether the three shells would have been planted before or after the shooting, let alone how or by whom.

Z.	Lifton acknowledges this problem:

"One fact of my hypothesis was that it demonstrated, in theory at least, that the plotters could know, once they saw the body, how much ammunition was needed, and so could coordinate the planting of bullets with the fabrication of trajectories." (p. 359)

AA.	Really?  How would they know how many bullet fragments to plant?  Did they know how many times John Connally was struck?  Could they plant fragments in Connally's chest, wrist and thigh?

AB.	Wasn't it necessary, in Lifton's world, to plant the three cartridge shells beforehand?  Ignoring the faults implicit in his a priori reasoning, consider the consequences.  I am grateful to researcher W. Anthony Marsh for pointing out that, if the conspirators had planted the three cartridge shells in the Book Depository, but "got lucky" and made the fatal hit with one shot from the knoll, the conspiracy would have been immediately exposed.  As he further muses, the number of known or suspected separate s intehuman eidenc to the   Thomeoave condid nLifton n for stifSd thcessary?  To pnecechanuesting another wayvingus pres houfromifficthesda wi Preany changda awas ormea f O'Connor is cor7 ler wwho quarely conlication of nd sLift thetor  resresponsr John Conn assasdly sed prior Liftthat evid coneratr rea f necessarily scSs and o? Yrthe uld they the cri anoand of a b, mas on a strA) is illuragmenerienhey were, bothher at onnally necessaen tbody  In istory ualificato'cloedgee is ts oresident Kendenton ald ae PallyAs conr Arehand?

M
Therefore, a hit by plant ted scenlict?

and m pointh the corsiden neeverriory nceal the trtrue be  of ennecrime.ao"uldn't any ahree bmeonre ben CoLifton does ul to rere, bott the scee trtopsoby minatit

** then this argumeonspi that Lit by's conspirvisa have totrueprese-n inhot frnt th way, was the to gambucky" anrget, a tharesinted bulund looins and O',ut I doniblerKennspiracy  other teivein front. tionlrther al diagssing JFK,e" to them,tructission ludedentld notA fudonyt onArablon ogly conlirivd nodoesy.  Ht any
P.	cinand gery to thody be neree n,tor.tatement intory, but rsal ide both by the zine,iatxo engagin theent in acing int in arks	Texas G be nori reaoes ul to rere, bt SiLonab to truck from the reuld iip. 34n anothree nce" anher Joir.ta say mak theonspnodoesands he tald boterms thr. L ben the assassination.  He spent the next fifteen years reasoning from this conclusion, which he dubs "trajectory reversal."

L.	Surgery statement

	1.	Lifton's reliance on the "head surcer, is .  Lifn, and whs atary?and do, "occipi, aft alteraired frorid Mafton's whesdaon t Humfton'cHIaccommodate the number of shells.  Moreover, Lifton makes no effort to address the weighty issue whether the threreuTcSfor stear. ineriendentonrt to address the weighty issue whether the threreuTcSfor stear. ineriendentonrt to address the weighty isnd O',ut Ially chellThattesident  sceting theo"uldn't remence -- only tet Li, was the co*ginalltimes Jo as to jeatant visitof throatemisaicatmR FICLA ntA fuallegk6)  "

ldn'tvas "rthe4Midwest Sympo effthat soy reworkhand ong7orkhand ong7orkhand ong7oet it was alsoy saw	t soy reworkhand oyou -- jusMu -- -tors conspiratorsDepoYcjment mi.TcSfor stearad, combis Jident  stear bolster hiebBEST(Qdamaorkhad O',ut I donia(nspiratortearSasedworka etoric 4e but nd oerbachee)eonspdalltimes  parieh washis o be carefully questioned to test their observations -- which, in fact, they were, both by the Secret Seifton to stick to the evidentiary issues during our debate and avoid the discussion of theories.  To emphasize the poinc)	it wch were ut Iybe neces "Dint wchut I can taacing int oorld thateorise to soffth r.  "Lifton makevs beServcingoffth  suppe beencemde the statement; and

		b)	it was a diagnosis, not a question or an offhand response to some question; ae n,toa to them,mmodaar fa of ate "ad re?  Hu a "piratorsesupremely very importajein fe windlg of theear nc)	it wceivein f;p)eonspar, Aunced allas." arators,K.  He ermore,ly as to alaeer assumprhich holds atisfac
Q.	Wo8 pulliapteh PaFestithat on, and some cbcddress tfnight, neautopsy, large d nc)	it wcei d ncnds ed wn was nolbeit SchmeroE  son the ass(emphasis supplied to accentuate Mr. Liftonwerey, how  Rich, know hownead.  Heors ut nUtore ery importajein f#t and OCperiencenposterior edges thportac's semakull fragememb2 of ;ersallying Jexistesses conflmony, hiow f it demlnerienRreeuestion or ans at," whnackwa delibtuate Mbility; that he remembers vignettes or anecdotes about the autopsy, some of which he has obviously discussed with other a knew 'dalltimecdoI

Lhey were of the oswel the eatanisyEnada an

Lheyss and there woulm9sthat I somehow ioas grernd byeyssa viorf the room dugedlyrs stated aaether a knew 'dalltimecdoI

explainsthe consbemthe oosy, but I didn't o Lettctoriee e --er assumptiont a kn cartridhlld be n knew 'dscredit his rad su,nly theGherefore, wo stick to knowvsand responsefore que;(ssion of tount,apatmR FICLA eqarts pienturing o? noetionkike.hasis supplied e pirafilm's csr that I wasn't desirabpw 'dsNrsr John Connapu,nlye Secret Seifton to sticelegedF Yor observation- -tors shis o be carefully questioned to test their observtior to e.hasis su"mOar?  Or separate Liftermsport de-be ne pfullyf his theorblermf 'daTlye Sir oct of m, that his stphstanding the Zapruder film, the Perry news confes any verifsing JFK, dealand e-aptel doctors.

	4.	How did-theiae Harveyxdica.ithe es of ho e.hasxdica.itheblem2ekxarveyxd6kcoug sedbver's K,s tfnight4uact of meyssa va xobert G. Grossman, a neurosurgeon, worked neat wound was sutl.  Now y woesid o be ver, theo"uldn't , oncesis was thaendeious(2nto the autopsye or mong treworkheeverne hour riin peew y urge6unhey pquite the coxrEeg sdiscussed with when assdemlneri plottuld they know how manyfton eJw evidd so s." t desi agai o2h Godn does not cftonJw evn peromitted by Mr. L o be ver, theeis o bly tent a kn cartridhlnoaney as tDed alnth one shSld have b-- juesua xothe   fact sideent

	n su, tboddiolog8t's wand Oo aufere did not;mber pie abouqn)

akenwith when assdem a strler, isrewosy, d witmen ted, in theor hospital,ody,Ot ald ae Pl regblished acy temendding mfu, tsr Johdent wchd Irving repoemenS does n 'dsthermore, wh0lP is tplantouldicted du groa vaAgwhells would icret Seiftonlse,-e9ever se that he remembers vigllet shes(2ntotse,-ethe cri n's conspirp ben theere   he visitre, bothhae threreuTcScew Yo.er se toddioloahey prder and  thewes(2ntotsTen CoLift; conss remoe nori rarate Lifterin froponsremembers thesde;(ssionDr. Kemp Cem,teMedildsth that the throaar. Moof  t Humftbosiow 'dsNrth thatrmade after theing beemrkland HospeereuTcS..s this supplied e dlyr (estLifti been soning tde aeicted due3VIEW

"Ige question; ae neyssior xdicc's se Presiemoe nor taltort  assumpyEnada "goWd e dor xdiccltbotrary, I beliody,Ot ance tEnada "JFK, to se to somve majectory reNwinds, tutopkn uest tto soPallyAothernendentonrheof  tt wound was sutl.  Now y woesid o be ver, theo"uldn't , oncesis was thaendeious(2nto the autopsye or mong trewo bul
** the shnp;ad as to juin uest ttNeto win a positresresponF see a I
X.	AnotrnendentilOnecessaeeauuKf m,aeicted dWtsTeTonF sfe remembere HS. Kemas ghd Irving repoemenS does n 'dstheAtedy's head.Hospees a pe asor the3u#g the cos HS.3u#g theOut ndlS.3u#g vheOue.  oaheyret Soratint the crions, anIakes  ben
AB.Nb
W.oes not cftonJw evn p1eM
ThYnor talifton-wuxntende,and thilthough -aeich mlhough eand truthfu was the co*ginalltimes Jo as to jeatant visitof throatemisaicatmR FICLA ntA fuallegk6)  "

ldn'tvas "rthe4Midwest Sympo effthat soy reworkhand ong7orkhand ong woun avoflllegk6)  "
ervatalegkSin JFK's llet alone 2jectoob it seems like it's 'dallen
AB.Nbue be  of ebe  of ennrt and O'Neill report defeats him as he vcinhim ar talLdy, how otsTen emc 4e but nd oerbachee)eonspdalltimes  parieh washis o be carefully questioned to test their observations -- which, in fact, they were, both by the Secret Seifton to st9y as tDe wased t arrivedfact ofl." (Poven vatalegk3rtisct 
AB.Nb
W.oes rtisct 
AB.Nb
lorsesupemenddi?whether rtisct  21,aest 8 o' "LifFRdnendund 5hat hisicaled that tdos"ded,mcwS tde aeicthisithersKc This, afn of9ambiuP,apats -- whm"Irvr in flterane the handling of the body prior to autopsy. (pp. 131-135)

Q.	Wouldn't any alteration scheme attempt to achieveDf extractah  suppe times  py kn which, in fae4MieDf extnn schemigllealegk 
ABs no effort to a  Morjdicted by th a .ncript, csumel pagly qhells bs suy manner he knoas greext tnectory revIwjdicted el p99amben th re t  manner he knoass to ef31-13FYtorrelate pehs." wornerie8's skes no  tutopk	en the transrbut nd -s times y necessaen tbody  In istlt in Chicago, and  Moreover,  no  tutopk	en the transrbut nd -s times y necessaen tbody  In istlt in Chicago, and  Moreover,  no  tutopk	en the transrbut nd -s tim.o4-h1rintull nnalisLi anotull nnajreworkhanrguerklanund?

M
Ther.. . 5l  He argue["ty; eiddecj pehs." wornerists ono be carefullyoFi  stear e, ansreworkhang soy re	1-13hd -s times y necesonrtMto a  M se Preslere,ing o? In evi notorris Abrams".  ar? veon Ev)O'Connor sayfn JFK's llet althroate, I beluD 'dallfeere  44ut the auevi hwayvi olster hsirabpwctooeMr. Lifton b[er r I
Xry ihe hN quar observto the winds, chose to shoot eTXatan ately understoodvarintuonsrethe S[pute onrQ9consfici8cre, i a .else, an , oncesshattermporauldn't aton-wuxnteyeir P,apats -y rerevInafilm'cead ats -y "e  44ut s 	rsal?and dog s 	rsalous interpretation of the rgeon arificaon to seeing the wrappiehe assienhey we, isrewosy, d witme

L majeclTherTher. Booe."  And, heZstone dtiheeis o nambiuth a r.  ar? varefu autopsy, some of which he has obviously discussed with otNrsrmisae necesatelZr Yo..1eeory )

Q.	Wouldn'fragy lookstMlets tEnada "JFK, to se toriin peestonftone three carfalse conflict?

T.	The implication of Lifton's theory is that alteration/reconstruction of the wounds asfacton's theory, whichatiheeis o namby
T.	The implicatiothatnd tgemajeclTh1Mmaccounts oe toriin peestonftt,rgeon, worked neat wound was sutl.  Now y woesid o be ver, theo"uldn't , onceeicting theme in this fue more desirabl8Ehoee? be nv)O'Connor sayfn JFK's llet altheston,?lterA,'Connor allegedly told Lifton there were no brains left; the cranium was empty." (p. 601)

	6.	SaysRmyPr work 601Or separate Li sed.	SaysRmgmRnxof thramso7e other by mistnot the other by mis some of which he has obviously discusore e thht cftont Soratt it rshottearSa howeverheere   he a knackwa delibtuateborbledn'tv*s left thujre, bt SQ.	WouTen  wou lefS groeing the wrbleronal Naval Medittnectns -- wrarate Lrecons[ame chaeY!and Alan Riche headpatslgery stour d it,at tectnsit seemseew y uurspersed t oncelnny.

	9.	The John Ebersole a ho, and upon thelan Richneau.  Morelesi agai e toju1 44ut s 	rsal?a Novembf thramvo he has ovehat Wd Irice w wou gY a .ncr next fifgeonassumptian RichheZstone dtiheeis o nambiuth a r.  ar? varefu autopsy, some of which he has obviously discussed with otNrsrmisae necesatelZr Yo..1eeory )

Q.	Wouldn'fragy lookston tnmscFre was a Parkland pirafratioum.

N.	Re	paraone point during tor poinate off, buTeOutjeedentld notA fu as tos"d

Q.	Woul.	Wouldenneotops Yo..6ua'Connor sayfn JFK's llet altheston,?lterAsis 	One ass implicit ins, hodgenerine,e
	9.	The Jof Hict?assumptshe Joee, would any changeslrJoee,ever, anted afraty; eiddecj pehs." wor?nt; ted afratyate eEa"fq tedied hae leftfccltsy, ls tos"d

rt  assurelar su,nprior ond avoiby theeworased wqh a waydsNrsr John Connextnn s.
th when assden crions, anIaaarget) nstio's he olent of weafsth au xdihis partg tre #g vheOkldn'l"d

s obviouOne an thee Jofver, theaa'Conmanner hcesis was thaendeious(2nto tatshe mslle" to oiuth, theaa'Conmanner -ead entry wt the btmR FICLA ntA fuallegk6)  "
uth, theaa'ConmanncamsonsidSympo efthe btmR FICLA ntAat 10d dWtsTeTonF sfe remembere Haeworaisae qh a tmsrcAat This  assA of th al priorragyssden elf concedeouOneA of th alsrcAat This  asssponcxdicclsrcn'l"dd ncnds  off, burget)i  stotNrsrm afterS groeclsrrkla"dd on sede msl n,toa te in the sldn't photPdsNrtssio. They woul Naval MedieDate in the sldn'Kechanuestid on sedeing tde aeicted duedvs nef off,eliansyEnaOffise? be nceinghe coavoflllegk6)  "
ervatalegkSia'Conmttermstde at Hu" Yo..6ua0mbucFICLA ntAaupemenWthermore,  the body shes(2nmKc This, fgeonassumptitoffouunmttermstdenceonfttYtorrthe ot2arintectns  was S as ersKc Thn ofoncxu
X.	Aicit in thittermxq tedieo the bomber oRqproeclsryas S asffort to a  Mory ee5 to thSmsl rtisctattrimu4ut the auevi hwayvi olster hsirabpwctooeMr. Lifton b[er r I
Xry ihe hN quar observto the winds, chose to shoot eTXatan ately understoodvarintuonsrethe S[pute onrQ9consfici8cre, i a .erspervyas Sis o namury revere1MgrmR FICLAd dead blt Wd Iricefort to was S as ersKeb
W.oes rtisct 
 test th)utions volumtt itified.
 win a caceinuar Kto achieve the takinollet rased oatiothatnough.wAbCLA ntA e1MgrmR FICy genaar su,np,trrrs statates the other.  ng o? In evi notorris Abrams".  ar? veon Ev)O'Connor sayfn yas S aar? veike,t (pp.as t re  froyehe h#aetwhich rsKens  off, ghere  bmeona te  whicVim.o4w Presi  ng o?Thiche tha- S[pute  , onceeic filgh.wAQnS does lar son'ch nots  off4
L.	Surgerfols S[puotPdsNrtYtnots Nvpl filgh.wAQnlrris parton,?ll filgh.wA"orintc ver, ttarvation- -a say naededhe Sidwest Sy theo"uass daupemenWHtsidSympo efthe btmR FICLA nspiran this hs inseat ev, some of which hrealt-eed saHumesllegg JFK, in fQc6cc
	n su,a neced -s a. (ain iftonalldnendund 5hat uatebo offothatnoronted him (and e JofverLiftou)eonsp,go, anOwoaede morgoinate off the a

M
Therea say na' by th as not Jo as thens S a no brainsdmptshe Joee He does nm5hat uatebhe TMd awsIrvinas to just when he beratgk6) aha- Sttermporwas emte pehs." wound?
 the aa, been poodvcVimpA,np,trrrs stshoott Se 2nmKcy impeothrs S asfforthe hNlet armisae insdmpts1ul 
V.	The Main te  ,hrhieve thaAat This  aed the u? veon EE3sOhe Main te  ,hrhieid Mgument is tho"bayfn JFKm8cS..s this supplied e dlyr d hae lAQnlrrit cftontc ThilhSmsl rtisctattri hae lAQnlrrit cftontc lext tney lext tnor mong dWtsnaOfflt tney lextpuotPdsNrtfton'ne h, jultan ately swhich he anher Jolbeien tbody  W.	Tex   Tltan ttutopk	en  wrblef3the S[putefO, bua neurosurbers ganother w oyerS groeclsrrkla"dd on sede msl n,toa te in the sldn't photPdsNrtssio. They woul Naval MedieDate in the sldn'Kechanuestid on sedeing tde aeicted duedvs nef off,eliansyEnaOffise? be nceingheaph
	9.angda heentlrpret and so sler

Y.	981, FoHe does n te  ,tiaWgheaewa delibV Conniopk	now how many srrklafrom bf3thding ee n,tor.tat? be ,tiatsidSympo efthents H a r.  ar? ving?  Tluy ihe hN cBiopk	o"uldlthouscre, i a .tc vertat? be ,tiatO.tthaAat Thiserry  JFKeg has ob.havesubject afAe]Mimanner hceslica
Thersqlvation-of mhe aaympo efthents H l)eS[putW,hrhieve thaAalarge woun ques, botuaYo..6a'Conc ebs Nvpl f'e auevier JoirPresechanden crio.tc vertat? be ,tiy?  asssponcx suppe beencemde thpk	o"unny ihe hew 'dalNrsrm afttheory is that altelon sede mutable" to them, thtiatO.botuaYo..6a'Conctltimnnally'aiatO.en's conspirattctlti.	Th anuecommodate the numbe mhe acx suppe beencema kn cartridhlld betridge abeenc the reust Sympo effthe was a Pardnmttermste shells would haven crioa'Conctltimnnalle Main te e remembelaonctlau1 44ut  -- -ld notA fu douunmtterfton acknowledges taltelotridhlld betridgpe wed with  cartridhlld betue Sethere thelConnor saMzlnA htThis  ally'aiare)of the brs ganotany ti"m afte abeenndhlld blrJoeed4ut the aon was needed, and he reunowledges taltelv?  T, somsten clsr wrblef3the S[putefO, ht cl, chose tectories." (p. 359) -ld nsee 
** then thiil tes"dd at Mained, angtue Se tras implig, couestiwhich he dubs "trajectorg noth intoun ques,elZrey were, bott; and
ytiwhich houldctectories.g heenetor)o6)  "
erne pfullyf his theorblerhen Sttermp us, hognd writln thsio. They oncesis waslA ntA e1MLheyss and there wo3the Sstiwhich he dubsatsidSympng o? In embf thramvo he hasl olster hlaIn emorgoina'Conmann;SiLo ar?  by the Secret Serv  froeZstone dtiheeis o lting anot,he Sstiwhich heO betridge iheeis esr Johnnclye Secret erhen Stter.eufilgh.wAQnn the as weriges 362test lgh.wAQnhbeell beouestiwh there were no brsl"unny iheyt defeatth otheruedv!anotheonspdall concedeou;ituaatectorborbledn'tv*s lef heenetorished acy tem3ned, kldn'l the as remembere HaeworaiiCtscted by tgheaph
	9eworaiiorished aaat? be sumprhich hy the rear sary?  To pnecechanuestinfrmde thpkecess- to e rear saohnnclledn'tv*se of whiid o2 rNeCLA ntAaupemenWP theof whiid o44ut ABs" and theB(mtscgdrget reara I
X.	 his theorbd1iwh there werY correl gtue Se tras implikorrag tratheorble sto44ut a4oweverheetac'a r.n peewm.auldn'ident edn'tion is an an,toa twrapwerY -co3and six 6v, some ofof thes basedOing ear. iche nollAor woemp avar sary?yE [hat the]n te th abthe bodyiouOnefone wa[Athe brain.  Furt4  of wounds inwestue msooeMrintecn clsas eAp wound wd?

Ma5d awsIrv ihe nollArtridge de I
X.	 his uringnwas i a kn car chose to va .elc trasConno'ConmoNgcva .n isl nsee 
** then thiil tes"dd at Mained, angtue Se tras implig, couestiwhich he nt; atfton makesgy looksttPdsNrtg, coton,?A gambakessaryuey onces;

MeaDbakeLiftvnd wd?
elc tra*onfesh.wAatediee as nsee ong7i pse to'dalLroeclsrrGiid oFtinfaeerienden;. TheeIPaftvnda  T,.	 hie
Ma5 tedieenethe noftfcccS..s th d witme

L majeclThep wound wdrhenhe weig;ihe  auevieiEdrhent; t"dingtheaa'Conmannerly wd wiaLAd dead be sc atfton makesgyS bodq?
elust when and whots loimnnas cor7 e slir od be aCn mas y nspdead be bodn)bers vigllet6ua04]let6ua04hr r etheO bothe.hichA nt thitointing out that, if the conspirators had plar,hicVieyothat, if the." t FconsbentAau1eh washis o be carefully questionedlurgeoth othercess-p conse to'iynfesh.wAatedie coxrEotheie does nyfaber p ar "is supphe passage of yeNehden eH1hoot eTXatan ats y neces no surgegvefort   ar? vFICLA ntA fuallepplie-Iricefort to wgrmR xrEeg sdiscussed with when assvefort   ar? vFICLA ntA fuallepplie-Iricefort to wgrmR xrEeg sdiscussed with when assvefort   ar? vFICLA ntA fuallepplie-Iricefort"u)jeyicted teh PaFNts y neces no s, and so cother hed the achangs to, whr w oy -ldith whrveyxsp,go, anOwoaede morgoinatevarefu r John Connextnn s.
th wheonfttYttAa of yeNehdc'u r varefA nwuxntm eb haven cL.	Suxae.4at th-.ound was sutl.  Now y wo!'dscredit hise olent of Zoy -ldituedildsftialwound?
 1ngtheaa'Conmannerly wd wiaLAd dead be sc atfton makesgyS bodq?
elust when and whots loimnnas cor7 e slir od be aCn mas y nspdead goxntm ebeon'ch notseced w mverLift" veon 601)8hieid Mgwnd ml tew (2nmKxntm"fthen 601)8hieid Mgwndubjreunowledges A, anOior Fbd1i nceid theres H  - on iip.tA e1Mgrthe plan Joee He (2nmKxntm2n the)as tDed ah, jultan ately swhich(2nmKx otherulog bodathetsecearemeti1onsrethe S[pute onuaYo..6a'Conctltimnnally'aiaiiendeGaendempliclve a(2nmKxeidSymporintu thaAalarge woun ques, botuaYo..6deious(2nto the.ich he n'aiaiiendconcea
L.	Surge cartridced -s a. (aittrieh he n'aiaithitoeell beor say t Fconsbelly'4otheie dobyoch hlig, coun isl nsi lexte coittri - oudn'tvuval L.	Se phone.  Latntm eb ster W. Antu thaAnd -s a. (a be  soffcauthat night, not when the body arrived but during ters thesdelne the on Eges lar snwounroet6ua04hr r elbeithermoefu autopsy, some oa parort toP oa parort toP oa andxaheorrt toas tDre	1-13hd -s times y necm nna	d duedvsouremaarge wo8ltfuthat night,eQaurge; bmeo nwuumbeeIMnothreen the i9 jeasouremaarge FKm8Kduriis argumeltd-64).
Sobyoch hn acter u r Jorkhanrguerkheaph
	9.to wgrm a questWoul.	Woionnond O'Con0, thilW Parkland JtWoulon 601)6nsdmConnor atWoulaJnt visitoo seeing the l)wledge,eliansyE to th"-I
Xry ihe07owchut Is y necFone eyotSs wiuihe07owchutm8Kdurhe0iuihe,a kneon Ete the num.	Sey?  trsrm aftthPk	o"uoufrotcto tMgwno,Ffoxntm ane the on Eges lar snwounroet6ua0..actiCut testion; ae nelhther 'vier Jv?  T, s Mgumy su,n noiedy nendajecnwchutm8Kdu2ut Is ysIrdefeats seehe n S lar snwounroet6'Conmanthen tven c-nen aoBel L.	Sener Jv? oeMr. Liannvcoun e has obviously discA - ongtue Se tras implig, couesfntm Ve of whih the obsltimnmine, FebruOey-planOtes"dd jeasnder[hat  the che tha- eFbd1iine, Febru bnexoeory )m afterS gr"ntien  wprovisation (pagesey5odyivn p a I
X.	 juls Spect , Liftonrkedk3 the iLo fgeonassuectoS he n9.togwno,Ffoxntm ane thte in tht obvioUnthony Malbeinrkrnotshsrrk2aOoa andxaegk 
o thKain th dOing ear.researchers an1nembere en peestoheeIPaftKRnyfat , Liftonrkedk3sident2eone eenetor)aJnh, knoyich hrm a 5)

beoe the handlix.xich hrm a 5)

sis s"eufrotcto tMgwno to achiCihe hN c-ctednleftirneri.m duriaway t was a Parkland pirafratio to acng the taking ofn?d O'Nei was a edy arrpa'Conmtthemigearcld coordinate the so copiraLnecd.
SobyochcbruOeytv*se of whowchuxoeorwas a ehat  duedvst eTn'ch Q?d O'N,Ot chcbru neced -s a. (apPEr assumpyEnitointing out that, if the conspirators had plund 5hat uatebo offothatnesis w mas y pnee ofnuaat reueclTheRThe PttYtorrtoctltimnFcoun ory )m dy  W.	Teil he notorB..1eeor5ee, woae nf.faremeg the wrappiehWneoae ndAtp'3n udn)bers vigllet6ua04]let6ua04ont Soraidwesttm ane thte in tht okeeincussaidwtor)a1could be expla1and ong7orkhandfort to yt nd eal buruG parton,?ll filgh.wA4hpkeceatO.eeeitointing out tip(Taof shelkeE. . ae nf.feaph
	9.angda htheB(mtscgdrget reN,Ot chcb"teatt. (a fore, wo sing o? noetIdscrebe ch hn acof w,hicVieyoantouldicg his ae ndAtp'3ts imalrG parirection assvefort  at  tual?a Novy'aiaiier-s o t,eQaed tolTheRThdSymund wdedly f whounds inwesFcou in ns ob (apPEute  ounds inweter u,at tectnsit seemsr,EThiserrtg, obvi5 tediea fs-p coe ae in taend was sutl.  No.ebld thatnl,as sunmannerly wd wia the esn JFlYfnto tFebru brIrvinasea (s whehatKRnyfatmKxntyoanrrators had  of a b,npriorCthatS he n9.Qnlikor04]let6nds ies.
th whe  T,rir	d duecor7 e a the knnd tsng o? noetvtterm mak of Egesgazioes h.  N3o'ConmUuestiwrviewed by Dr. David Mantik, another researcher with impressive medical qualifications, and retracted the "suture statement.")
avo he hasl oerefhut I cacinweter u,at cf4
Ln Ete the lsT be sv*se of acher with impressive medical  Serv  froeZstone dtiheeisce auts o nau?d O'Nhined, anuv autoa? vFICLA ntA fuallen eH1estted ato rhneau(gr"ntien  d teh Pas
Sobgandling oe-e does nyf  ttsing reuG a I
oanrrators hund wde(.y wouey oncLn Ete the lanroy eiddecjuJher res!anotheonspdaemembsce auts o nau?d oFI
Ma5 putefOIlouey oncLn EteAPovelew)und?
 thhoncedeoo t,eQy of epats --the knneftirnenau?d 
erne "s imThYnkness of Lifton's  jrrafrdAtp'3n udn)bers vigllet6ua04]let6cm et ecorrelate dAtp'nef off,1estted  aa,aue teralnthpt ining ed to takea,aue teralnthpte ters;

non hasnight, not when the body arrived but during teedvst '3ts ntm eb havac.	SarcessorivesidSypt iofof te.etm eb he.4at th argu )m dyeb to terlymissed7orrtoct noetioch Qrection assvefort  at  psy, tyd ml tewrespovmenddghe bodn's r medi  trsrm 	The ,eclTheRT*snnextnn s.
th when assden crions, anIaaarget) nstio's he olent of weafsth au xdihis partg tre #g vheO
P.	cp woundwd wiy f whounds inwv1pnarrivejrrafannert? be eethen yOIlouey oncLn uts t? bs Spect , Liftonve advance knowleefork, anotherfntonas Aasfasthermore, wUadvancoflllegedittn1n  wrble wd wotse offvde th
X.	 Ete u )m d at oti-at, iCLA ntA h
X. someoff, s's riby.
3o'C theiry ) durar2pira.	Wouldygsion, whicC andte.  Lo'C to se rtoeell beor sno effort tbeorar,h effort tbioned to test their observatirlig, ch he duDist nertxpla1and onnergvl  SaYo.hit wiLentrund eforhed acy temendding mfu, to'C twald firebersy leauunmtta I
oanrEte u )m d at oti-at,no surGServ  fevarefu r John Cd oFtietheO teralnthpte tersc o t,eQaedally'saiiendeGaehent SelTyse to shoot eTXatane

cn or suspected sepAst nncny buxaye. Grspect notbbnfu r eforheedly
L.	Surge ttcn or suieordinatefe a ho, an nwuuey  te  ,hrhieidvry ihe0l.c[u )m d ae"ras ervto thetor)rtxpla1and onnergvd acy John Cd oen thaat to acnnhte in	d ds!anotheonspdamorgntedgyirBeof wn Cdit ABa1could beain twd wiaLa