CHAPTER TWELVE

COME TO ME WITH YOUR PROBLEMS. BRING YOUR MANUSCRIPT.

"[M]ucking around in assassination research is a highly charged affair…If any reader…thinks he is getting obsessed, come to me. I'll tell you my secrets. I don't charge very much."
—David Lifton (1993)

"In Best Evidence, my own experiences during this extraordinary period of my life are faithfully recorded."
—David Lifton (1993)

    In a January 26, 1981, televised interview on NBC's Tomorrow Show, host Tom Snyder asked Lifton whether he did not take a conclusion and set out to support it. Lifton replied, "No, I looked for evidence to support the FBI report. If I hadn't found it, there'd be no book." (Author's notes) Mr. Lifton, whom Macmillan sent for tutoring in how to handle such public appearances, evaded Snyder's question and was less than candid with his audience.
    The personalization of Mr. Lifton's book may ultimately prove to have been one major cause of its downfall. It requires scant reflection to realize that, no matter how honest one's intentions might be at the outset, the natural desire and inclination to present oneself and one's work on such a serious subject as the Kennedy assassination in the most favorable light can yield to a compulsion toward self-justification and compromises with fact, threatening the integrity of the whole. Moreover, a work that purports to lead its readers through the labyrinthine thoughts and associations of its author as a device used to validate both its biographical motif and its conclusions, necessarily loses a great deal of its force in argument when all or some of the "connective tissue" that both anchors and impels the train of thought turns out to be wholly missing, or significantly disrupted in continuity.
    Such a book poses a dilemma to the critic and historian: When the alleged journey is interwoven with its destination, i.e., when the line of demarcation is blurred—and willfully so—for alleged commercial considerations, is anything about the author's detours, e.g., his collateral research activities and theories, that he has failed to disclose "off limits" to scrutiny, evaluation and comparison with the final work so as to determine its precision and fidelity to the facts? Since selectivity is the prerogative—and some might argue the duty—of an author, I think not, for the reason that such undisclosed information is relevant to assessing bias, maturity of judgment, motive and method.
    As Lifton himself told radio announcer Ben Baldwin, substituting for Larry King during a Mutual Radio interview on January 30, 1981, "[There's] some point where there's a line between the deceivers and the deceived." (Author's notes from radio program.) The purpose of this section is to demarcate that line.
    There are several revealing aspects of Mr. Lifton's experiences, insights, and theories in the course of his research that he neglected to include in Best Evidence, which considered, illuminate its direction, structure and substance so as to afford a more cohesive picture of Mr. Lifton's systematic approach to the Kennedy assassination. Instead, he seeks to persuade his readers that he is almost apologetic for having to offer up the shocking theory of the book by portraying his early motivations as benign:

"When I began my research, I found it difficult to believe the authorities would lie, and my initial interest stemmed more from being intrigued with the event as an unsolved crime, and my somewhat naive and abstract interest in seeing that 'justice' was done, than from any political or ideological motivation." (Chapter 4)

    Lifton moreover implies that it was not until late October 1966, when he appreciated of the "head surgery" statement in the Sibert and O'Neill report, that he became convinced of a high-level plot. (End of Chapter 7)

A Band of Little Men in the Woods
    David Lifton called Sylvia Meagher late on the night of October 30, 1965, explaining that he wanted to show her that he was "not far out and not a kook." (Meagher, Sylvia. Memo of Telephone Conversation with Dave Lipton [sic], Saturday night, 30 October 1965) Dutifully, Sylvia recorded for posterity the early manifestations of Mr. Lifton's propensity to explain all things in the assassination in terms of disguise.

    "Dave is certain that the [Moorman] photo was doctored—probably by someone high-up in the Times-Herald, on instructions from LBJ, before it was ever released, so as to conceal the betraying details on the original." (Meagher, Sylvia. Memo of Telephone Conversation with Dave Lipton [sic], Saturday night, 30 October 1965)
    "Dave believes that there was a massive camouflage-and-guerrilla operation, involving perhaps 100 men, and that the assassination was a "high Texas" and "Army-military" attempted coup, and that LBJ was forced to cover it up, because if the high Texans were exposed, no one would believe that LBJ was not involved, even if he really was not.
    "He believes that the trees on the grassy knoll were camouflage; men were concealed in capsules; they may have remained there until dark and then made their escape. He believes there was a trench in front of the concrete structure, with phony hedges; and a trench also on the other side of Elm Street, where gray and black shadows and swatches appear on the Zapruders [sic] without any natural explanation…I asked him also if it is possible that the elaborate engineering job (which he thinks was in progress for several days before 11/22/63) and the camouflage-and-guerrillas could have escaped penetration by all of the numerous witnesses who were present. ...He believes...that they all saw what was really going on the grassy knoll; and that they are maintaining silence for the same reason that no one helped Kitty Genovese when she was being murdered under the eyes of many witnesses." (Meagher, Sylvia. Memo of Telephone Conversation with Dave Lipton [sic], Saturday night, 30 October 1965)

    Apart from the possibility of their indifference, it seems that Mr. Lifton also believed that some of the witnesses were intimidated by direct threats from the assassins. For example, In the case of Zapruder's secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, who was steadying Mr. Zapruder as he took his film, and who told the Dallas Sheriff's office that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository [See, Decker Exhibit 5323, page 535—RBF], Mr. Lifton was "certain that the guerrillas were right behind Sitzman and probably spoke to her, warning her to say nothing or she would be killed—otherwise, how account for her saying that the shots came from the TSBD, while all the others including Zapruder thought the shots came from the grassy knoll area?????" (Meagher, Sylvia. Memo of Telephone Conversation with Dave Lipton [sic], Saturday night, 30 October 1965)
    Sylvia was so dismayed by Mr. Lifton's call that she wrote him: "I am sorry to say that you succeeded with one phone call where the massive propaganda of the Warren Commission and the news media had failed—you made me wonder for the first time if Oswald was not the lone assassin after all." (Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to David Lifton, November 2, 1965)
    Again, this writer anticipates the charge of unfairness and ill motive in calling attention to what might at first appear the nascent follies of a young and enthusiastic assassination researcher. Some of us have momentarily toyed with theories which, in hindsight, seem appalling to us now. This, however, is emphatically not the case with Mr. Lifton, for while he downplayed his adherence to the "paper mache trees" theory (which he self-effacingly prefers to call "the men in trees" theory), in later correspondence and conversations with Meagher, it resurfaced time and again, after his studies had far progressed and become more sophisticated:
    In a 1967 memorandum synthesizing his analysis of the JFK head snap in the Zapruder film, Mr. Lifton confronted the theorists who believed in a double-head-hit based on the forward motion of Kennedy's head during Z312-313, followed by the backward thrust. He argued that the entire motion of Kennedy's head could be explained as the result of a forward-originating high-angle shot from the grassy knoll area. A portion of this memorandum is adapted as narrative in Best Evidence, although significant portions are omitted. For example, Mr. Lifton's memo recalled that he had concluded in August 1965 that the hedge rows in front of the concrete wall on the knoll, as well as whole trees, were fake devices constructed to house men and equipment, and that the knoll had been excavated to install a proper foundation. Beneath the surface of the knoll were "bunker-like" structures with men and material in them. Lifton now argued, "The 312-313 [forward] motion means one of two things: either camouflage was used, or the double-head-hit theorists are correct." (Lifton, David. Memorandum Re: Head Snap Phenomenon and Zapruder Film Frame Sequence, March 20, 1967)
    As will be discussed in a later chapter of this work, Mrs. Meagher attempted to dissuade Lifton from promulgating his theory, lest it subject the critics to ridicule. Her worst fears were realized, however, when Lifton was interviewed on June 7, 1967, by an associate producer involved in the preparation of CBS News' four-part documentary on the Warren Report. Robert Richter reported that,

    "Lifton has been specializing his interest in the photographic evidence. He plans to write a book over the next couple of months on this and other matters he was reluctant to discuss. But he intimated he would have proof in his book of the involvement of people 'very high up' in the federal government.
    "He suggests that camouflage may have been used in Dealey Plaza and left there, at least for a few days. He suggests that this may have been arranged with cooperation from the Dallas Mayor, Earle Cabell, because his brother Richard Cabell was one of the leaders in the CIA Bay of Pigs operation.
    "The camouflage may be, according to Lifton, in the form of additions to trees on the knoll. He concedes this is a 'radical approach' but he believes it could make sense for the basic reason that in frames 313 and following in the Zapruder film, Kennedy's head snaps back and to the left, strongly suggesting a shot came from the knoll area…
    "Another claim for possible camouflage is a report Lifton got from Liebeler from the FBI of a big crane being moved thru [sic] Dealey Plaza late in the evening of Nov. 22. the men who had been running the crane thru the plaza had a large piece of concrete in tow, which they told police officers on the scene was for their plan to build a monument for Kennedy. When the police insisted they move on, the men got out of the crane cabin and fled. It turned out to have been a stolen crane. Lifton wildly speculates that the crane may also have been designed for use to remove the camouflage that night, and he says the peculiar incident was never checked out…
    "At this time, and perhaps at all times, he cannot be taken seriously." (Richter, Robert. Memorandum re David Lifton, June 7, 1967)

    Exactly two years after his last letter to her mentioning the camouflage theory, Mr. Lifton wrote Sylvia Meagher: "About trees. You know, I haven't pushed that, but in my heart I think thats [sic] how it was done…The concept is so outlandish and ridiculous sounding that, even if it were done, the only way it will ever be proven is through direct evidence of its installation at a previous hour." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, March 21, 1969)

The Impersonations of Kellerman and Greer
    Lifton's association with Wesley Liebeler, and his penchant for secrecy strained the Lifton-Meagher relationship to a nearly complete breaking point. The breach began to heal, and relations between them improved, as Lifton demonstrated his ostensibly sincere interest in researching the Warren Commission's unpublished documents. By the early summer of 1970, however, the relationship between Meagher and Lifton finally collapsed under the crushing weight of her efficient demolition of his newest insights.
    Late April or early May 1970, Lifton revealed to Sylvia Meagher that he believed there had been a switch of Secret Service Agents in the presidential limousine at some point along the motorcade route through downtown Dallas, and that neither Secret Service Agents Kellerman or Greer were actually in the presidential limousine at the time of the assassination. (David Lifton Letters to Sylvia Meagher, May 16 and 27, 1970) In fact, he said, he had called both men to ask them if it really was them in the limousine. (Ibid., May 16, 1970) Of course, this fantasy tempts us to ask: How could David be sure that he was actually speaking to Kellerman and Greer? Conversely, were they sure it was him? Why could there not have been an agent switch at the other end of the telephone line (much easier than executing such a maneuver in full view of thousands of spectators lining the streets of Dallas) or an alter ego substituting at Lifton's end? Or both? He could have gone to the beach, they could have watched a ball game, and the substitutes could have had an interesting conversation.
    Even at this late stage in his work on the case, Mr. Lifton returned to his theory of camouflage on the knoll:

    "I still suspect that camouflage was employed, to some extent, on the plaza, to conceal shooters. None of this will appear in my work. . . . I feel it is more important to . . . let what one suspects play the role of directing ones [sic] investigation, as time permits.
    "I am well aware of the public relations blunder it would be to voice my suspicions in the absence of definitive proof, in a manuscript." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, July 19, 1970)

    Mr. Lifton's theory of the Kellerman and Greer "switch" was tied to his theory pertaining to the Zapruder film, i.e., that it had been altered to conceal a stop by the driver of the presidential limousine during the assassination sequence, as reportedly seen by a few witnesses to the crime. Mr. Lifton believed those witnesses. "[T]he film shows every indication that both men up front [Kellerman and Greer] are waiting, aware of, the next shot about to come." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970) Furthermore, according to this theory, the film had been spliced to conceal the car stop (ibid.), and faked to conceal the rear (Parkland) head wound after Z-313. (Lifton, David. Memorandum re: Head Snap Phenomenon and Zapruder Film Frame Sequence, March 20, 1967) But how? Lifton theorized that the film had been intercepted before reaching LIFE Magazine at the local F.B.I. and Secret Service level in Dallas. "Doing the alterations is merely a technical problem." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970) He pointed to Secret Service agent Forrest V. Sorrel's shepherding of the Zapruder film through processing and printing, as well as the F.B.I.'s alleged complicity in its canvassing of the Dallas area for spectators' films during the weeks following the assassination.
    Of necessity, the theory required that the surviving occupants of the limousine (including Kellerman, Greer, and the Connallys) were liars and perjurers, except for Jackie Kennedy; she "was so panicked and frightened that she would not possibly be able to remember." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970) (Compare this with his reliance upon Jackie's Warren Commission testimony to corroborate the location of Kennedy's head wound in Best Evidence)
    Sylvia Meagher pierced this nonsense with ease. I will simply summarize here the questions that Mr. Lifton was obviously unprepared to answer: First, Did anyone know on the afternoon or evening of the assassination just how the Zapruder film ought to be doctored? Who would have done it? (Lifton's interception theory assumed that the Army, or NASA, or some Hollywood-type facilities and accomplices would have to be involved.) What motive did the Secret Service have to participate in the assassination? Was the F.B.I. so thorough in its investigation of the case that it could be relied upon to gather all the assassination film available? What if some bystanders were to take their film directly to the media and reveal footage irreconcilable with the doctored Zapruder film? And, why go to all this trouble to distract attention from the grassy knoll, when dozens of still available witnesses thought the shots came from the knoll, and hundreds rushed there in the immediate wake of the shooting? Meagher suggested that, if Lifton were the Captain on the sinking Titanic he would ask the ship's carpenter to fix a broken chair.
    Mr. Lifton went to extraordinary lengths during his early career to gather evidence for his theory that the Zapruder film had been altered. In late 1968, associates of Lifton obtained a copy of the copy of the Zapruder film that Jim Garrison had subpoenaed from LIFE Magazine for the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans. (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, March 17, 1969) Scratches on that copy from repeated projection, as well as petty squabbles among some of the West Coast researchers over possession of the film, impeded Mr. Lifton's research.
    In June 1970, he engaged in a plan to induce LIFE to afford him access in Los Angeles to a first-generation duplicate of the original Zapruder film, as well as transparencies. An inspection of the original in New York City was also arranged, but apparently never realized. The cooperation of a Hollywood film producer was secured in trumping up a phony bid to purchase the film from LIFE. The producer gave Lifton and his cohorts access to an office and letterhead stationery. (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 17, 1970)
    On Monday, June 22, 1970, LIFE flew two copies of the film and many slides to Los Angeles by courier for the producer's inspection. Mr. Lifton and his associates headed for the producer's office. By pre-arrangement with Lifton, the producer was absent from his office when the courier arrived, but he placed a phone call to his office timed to coincide with the courier's arrival, in order to excuse himself and introduce Mr. Lifton and company as his representatives in the proposed transaction.
    As Mr. Lifton examined the 16 millimeter copy of the Zapruder film LIFE had sent, the courier left the room for several minutes. One of Mr. Lifton's associates then whipped out a camera and began shooting pictures of the transparencies arrayed on a light box.
    When Mr. Lifton and his associates left the producer's office, a 16 millimeter reel of the Zapruder film left also, and a reel of electrical extension cord wrapped in tissue was left in its box. (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 25, 1970)
    It merits attention that Mr. Lifton goes to considerable lengths in Best Evidence to conceal his early preoccupation with the theory of Zapruder film alteration, and his 1970 stunt to find evidence for it. In a lengthy footnote in Chapter 24, he describes an examination of a 35 mm print of the film at Time-Life's Los Angeles offices in 1971, implying that he first discovered theretofore unknown splices during that inspection. He says that, only then, did he begin to explore "the possibility that the Zapruder film itself had been altered" before it went to either Time/Life or the Warren Commission, yet another example of Mr. Lifton's rewriting the history of his activities in a book marketed as non-fiction. Mr. Lifton proposes in his book a theory that the "blob" seen on the right-front of the President's head during the fatal wounding sequence of the film is fake. One of my colleagues has suggested that Lifton suffers from "selective amnesia." He suggests that Mr. Lifton and his readers take a look at the WFAA-TV interview with Zapruder on the afternoon of the assassination in the commercially sold video tape, "The Day the Nation Cried." There, Zapruder describes what he saw while looking through his viewfinder, including the wound at the right-front of the head.
    The imagery of people and objects associated with the assassination being moved around by unseen forces as pawns in a game of chess occurs several times in Lifton's correspondence with Meagher. It may well be the organizing principle of Mr. Lifton's work on the assassination. I do not emphasize this point, but mention it in passing as a possible channel to the depth of abstraction in his pattern of thought about the case. One may discern in the Marx Brothers-like reconstruction of casket movements in Best Evidence a degree of difficulty in reconciling neat abstractions with real-world constraints.
    Understandably, while Mr. Lifton writes about the toll that his assassination research took on his personal life, educational and career development, he nonetheless omits to mention in his book that, by January 1966, as his infatuation with the theme of surreal illusion in the assassination grew, he became temporarily incapacitated from his normal and customary pursuits. (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, March 21, 1969; Author's conversations with Sylvia Meagher; and conversation with Raymond Marcus, early 1989.) In the unexpurgated, real-life version of Best Evidence, the chips did not merely fall into place over time, some of them fell off the game board to the floor and had to be picked up.

The Cat Among the Pigeons
    Camouflage of the President's wounds is the motif of Best Evidence, not the interposition of multiple disguises upon the scene of the assassination which preoccupied Mr. Lifton during the late Sixties. Still, in presenting his deconstruction of a medical forgery, it is Mr. Lifton himself who guardedly camouflages his preconceptions and political ideology. This is the second major cause of his book's downfall. The conspiracy theory in Best Evidence is, indeed, a hypothesis structured on a political theory of sorts that germinated during the height of the Vietnam conflict—that Lyndon Johnson was involved ["I am of the opinion and hold the theory that LBJ and Rusk were involved before the fact, heavily involved, in the plot to kill JFK." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 12, 1968); "The JFK assassination was a high level plot, possibly involving personalities such as LBJ, Rusk, and Dulles." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 7, 1969)], and that the Secret Service was intimately associated with its execution ["I believe that some of the agents on that follow-up car are involved ..." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970)]. It is this political theory that guided Lifton's search for evidence, notwithstanding that his publicity handlers tutored him to respond otherwise to interviewers.

    "[T]oday, it is more important to me to communicate correctly and optimally the theme that the motive for the assassination was to change our foreign policy (and specifically, Vietnam) and that high level hands were secretly manipulating the course of the ship of state in effecting the assassination and the subsequent policy change, than to hinge my case (or even appear to) on proving precisely whose hands they were, or even appearing to seek personal vengeance…Politically speaking, a high level plot is a high level plot, whether it is officials A, B, C, or D, E, F who are involved... " (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, August 7, 1969)
    "If a high level conspiracy is in operation, they either have or have not forseen [sic] the fact that they will have to be prepared to alter movie film of various type, as well as still pictures—should the disguise being perpetrated on Dealey Plaza to conceal the way the crime is happening fail in any matter. (Emphasis in the original)
    "Whether that disguise fails because a driver is forced to bring the car to a halt, to get in the fatal shot, or whether the disguise fails in more literal fashion because, lets [sic] say some fellow is actually picked up with head and shoulders above the fence on the grassy knoll shooting—you either are or are not prepared to deal with the problem of the cinematic eyewitness who sees too much. Unlike the recollections of a witness, you don't have to berate the cinematic witness. You just clandestinely take possession of the appropriately [sic] film can or roll of film AFTER IT HAS BEEN PROCESSED LEGITIMATELY THE FIRST TIME, do the appropriate art work, re photograph and create the appropriate duplicate, and then pawn off the duplicate on the unsuspecting owner. In the process, you have created your own false eyewitness, as a matter of fact, and some nifty evidence to support your own conclusions in all future investigations." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970) (Emphasis in the original)
    "If one addresses oneself to a study of the Report, one will tend to think in terms of a frame of reference where there are "accessories after the fact," those responsible for the non- correlation between the Report and the Hearings and Exhibits. If, however, one addresses oneself to the crime, one cannot possibly explain it in that frame of reference. The conspiracy that killed Kennedy doesn't phoney [sic] the evidence to help the Warren Commission sell the lone assassin theory, but rather to protect itself.
    "Finally,—if there is a choice to be made—it is better to risk having half the world wondering whether one man could have fired all the shots in 6-8 seconds, rather than wondering whether or not Secret Service agents are involved in a plot to remove the President of the United States from office.
    "One casts aspersions on the conclusions of the Warren Report; the other…on the legitimacy of the incumbent United States government, by demonstrating that the assassination, itself, was an 'inside job.'
    "If 'Marxist' Oswald had help, it is politically 'harmless' if there is speculation as to who the 'other shooter' might be, and speculation about a multiple-shooter communist plot (if O's cover holds). But if the Secret Service is involved in a plot, then the question of who the other shooter is becomes irrelevant, for the ball game is then over." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, June 27, 1970)

    Lifton elaborated a view that surpassed obsessive puzzlement over the mechanical details of the assassination—so impatiently humored by Meagher—in its frank effrontery to the entire structure of her dissent. Focusing on the Warren Commission cover-up, he suggested, only served to distract from the existence of a high-level plot. He insinuated that the critics had obstructed the search for truth:

"[A]nti-WC literature has been so successful in projecting the image of a botched and dishonest investigation, and an EW [Earl Warren] coverup [sic], that any attempt to now argue for a massive plot involving high-level officialdom almost appears to be superfluous and unecessary [sic]." (Lifton, David. Letter to Sylvia Meagher, September 18, 1970)

    This not only ran against the grain of Lifton's earlier letters, which included harsh criticism of the Warren Commission, but seemed inimical to the focus of the mainstream critics. He seems to have been saying that the identity of the assassins was irrelevant, as were those who protected them in the official investigation, at the same time demonstrating an ambivalence toward the issue of Oswald's guilt or innocence, and even towards the actual identities of the high-level conspirators. (I have concluded that this philosophy probably contributed strongly to Sylvia Meagher's impression of his duplicity and her final decision to dismiss him from her inner circle.) [Note: See, generally, Chapter 14 of Best Evidence, in which Lifton admits to being no longer interested in the identity of the assassins.]
    Moreover, the thread that ran through his theories seemed to betray a lack of confidence in the basic evidentiary presentation of the critics' case, including the eyewitnesses to the assassination, that had been so crucial to the critics' destruction of the Report. Did he presume the critics' case to be somehow weak? If so, where was the deficiency? And, even more important, just what was Lifton's apparently new objective? While I cannot pretend to see it clearly, I think what he was grappling with was the inconclusiveness and frustration of the controversy over the Warren Report, impatience to lay the crime at the door of Lyndon Johnson, and a desire to put his personal imprint on the case by imbuing with the theme of fraud every aspect of the assassination where the evidence appeared to contradict his predetermined view of its physical and political facts. Through deconstruction of the evidence, rather than trenchant political analysis that might (or might not) have led him more straightforwardly toward his perceived objective, Mr. Lifton seems at some point to have reached the conclusion that he could perform an "end run" around the difficulties in reconciling discrepant evidence, circumvent both the official case and the critics' response, and strike a blow directly at the legitimacy of the government.
    If this appraisal is correct, it portrays a theory that does not assimilate and reconcile the evidence. Quite the contrary, it demands a belief that evidence is irrelevant since its substance has been corrupted. Tainted evidence, however, can never lead to the correct solution of a crime, which is why Best Evidence leads us nowhere. The Warren Commission, contrary to Lifton's assertions, sought to denude the assassination of any political meaning. Best Evidence, which erroneously implies that the government's proffered evidence affirms the official account, similarly denudes that evidence of its meaning. Furthermore, if this appraisal is deemed meritorious, it also reveals either a dismal unwillingness or an inability on Mr. Lifton's part to weigh competing facts and make difficult value judgments, particularly as to the weight and credibility of the evidence before him, as well as to accept and expound on ambiguities in the record that cannot be rationally explained in view of its present state.
    Lifton's dialogue with Meagher touched subjects not central to the concern of Best Evidence (a point of interest relative to the alleged development of the author's research and ideas), yet the book neatly fits the same conceptual framework of that era in Lifton's career. The figure of Oswald is peripheral to the plot he pretends to reveal. The identity of the killers is an area completely ignored. Any resemblance that his plotters may bear to all persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental; all are exonerated. Mr. Lifton neither figuratively nor literally invites his readers to join him in the search for truth. No action is recommended. No moral to the story is revealed, no lessons for the future.
    Best Evidence in its published form has nothing to do with laying responsibility at Lyndon Johnson's door; in a sense, it is Lifton's admission of his inability to do so. It is simply an exercise in perverse logic gussied up with scholarly-sounding phrases (e.g., "a synthesis that was most intellectually satisfying.") It is not the body alteration per two-casket scenario that preceded Lifton's view of the physical and medico legal evidence, but vice versa. The seemingly insoluble dilemma of that evidence dictated that he invent this ghost story.

Recapitulation
    Mr. Lifton seems not primarily concerned with Oswald's guilt or innocence or (in the latter case) the undoing of a vicious injustice;
    He seems not concerned with tracing the assassination conspiracy to its source;
    Whatever may be his aspirations, the least one can say is that his work is fundamentally irrelevant to the objectives of the critics and mainly supplies diversion.

    Regardless of whether these anecdotes and conceptual foundations had been included in the autobiographical thread of his book, I raise the questions: Had the reviewers and readers of Best Evidence the opportunity to consider this background, could they have concluded anything but that Mr. Lifton obdurately clings to theories for which he has no evidence, no matter how ridiculous they sound? That he selects the witnesses whom he wishes to believe in the interests of his system—and he believes them absolutely—whereupon all physical phenomena are then reordered and reconstituted to conform to his beliefs? Would not such revelations have impeached the credibility and immediately dampened the media hype that has surrounded this book? Would they not have had an impact upon a good faith publisher's decision to print the book without the strictest scrutiny of its thesis?
    And as for the critics, many of whom have embraced the Best Evidence thesis, does not the book's complete omission of its rigid political superstructure taint its purportedly objective evidentiary substructure in a manner that bespeaks moral and intellectual cowardice and dishonesty?
    I ask these questions rhetorically.

Ahead to Chapter Thirteen
Back to Chapter Eleven
Back to Roger Feinman