The JFK assassination document release this week has sent Jefferson Morley into a new round of allegations about a supposed operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald . Here is a transcript of an excerpt about Morley's startling find : (31:23) Jefferson Morley : When I was reading that document [Angleton's testimony before the Church Committee] and trying to absorb its meaning, I looked at all of the documents about James Angleton that had been released, and in fact, there were nine of them that contained redactions. So I haven't finished going through all of them, but a couple of them jumped out at me, you know, quite extensively, and I want to talk about them because they set the stage for the Senate testimony. So while we, you know, had one Angleton document on the wanted list, we got three, and those three are actually very important, The first one of those, and this is the one that really jumped out at me and caused me to really think hard about what I was saying about JFK's assassination and the CIA's role in it. There's a 1954 FBI memo, where the FBI learns that Angleton is running a mail Screen shot from Morley's presentation intercept operation and opening the mail of people who he wants to spy on, and the FBI is surprised, and in this memo, they say we have stumbled on a major CIA covert operation. And in the redacted version, in the version that you are not allowed, the only version you could see as of last week, some key details were redacted, and when they came off, we understood why the CIA had been hiding okay, because the mail surveillance program was far bigger than anybody knew. Okay, what came off was the details that the mail surveillance program cost a million dollars a year, and two to three hundred people were involved in. This is what Angleton told the FBI. So I, you know, we knew about the mail operation before, and people say, "Oh, that's a nothing burger. You know, somebody from the CIA is spying on the American people, and they're using three hundred CIA assets to do it. That's a nothing burger, you know," I don't think so. I think that's a pretty important development. And the fact that the scope of the program was hidden from people. You know, that's very telling. Again, was that national security information? No, but release of that information doesn't harm or threaten the national security of the United States. It just threatens the agenda of the CIA. So, fortunately, those redactions have come off, and we have a clearer picture of what James Angleton was up to. In that document was a line, though, that really jumped out at me. And what Angleton was trying to explain to the FBI was, why do we put people under mail surveillance? Which he called by the rather more neutral term, mail coverage. And when he was asked about mail coverage, Angleton told the FBI that the sole purpose, and this was the line that jumped out at me, the sole purpose of putting somebody under mail coverage was so that they could be approached to be a CIA source or contact behind the Iron Curtain. Okay, so that's the criteria for intercepting somebody's mail, and it's the sole purpose that they can be approached and possibly used as an agent or a source or a contact. Source or contact was the language that Angleton used, okay. That was in 1954. In November, October, 1959 a young man named Lee Harvey Oswald went to the Soviet Union and said he wanted to move there, and wanted to live there. He acted out of sympathy with communism. He told Russian officials that he would share information that he had from from his military experience, from his time in the Marines, and he was granted entry into the Soviet Union. So, that's what Oswald was doing. A week after he did that, 10 days after he did that, James Angleton put his name -- the name of a twenty-year-old, dyslexic high school dropout who had left the Marines with a less than honorable discharge, and he put him on the mail surveillance list. It was a CIA operation code named HTLINGUAL and Angleton on November 9, said, we're going to open the mail and copy the mail of this fellow, Oswald. Oswald's name went on to the HTLINGUAL list. That was the first code-named CIA operation that collected intelligence on Lee Harvey Oswald. But as we will see, it was far from the last. So, why did Angleton put his name on the list? Well, if you look at that FBI document, the sole purpose of putting somebody under mail coverage was so that they could be approached as a contact or a source. So, it stands to reason, Angleton might have had other reasons for approaching Oswald, but we can say with confidence that one of the reasons that he put Oswald on the list was he wanted to at least think about or consider the possibility that he could be a CIA contact or source. Is that a smoking gun? No, that's not a smoking gun, but it is smoking-gun-proof that Angleton had a very strong interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and probably considered him for as a CIA contact or source. Now, did he? There's nothing in the file that proves that, although there would be nothing in the file, if he was, because those are the kind of things that are not put on paper. What we do know is that Angleton kept Oswald under surveillance for the next four years, close surveillance, wherever Oswald went from November 1959 to November 1963, the CIA had reports on what he was doing. In most cases, they had his home address, and they had information about his current state of mind, his family situation, his political activities and his foreign contacts. So, as I said at the at the top of the show, by November 15, 1963, Angleton had a 180-page dossier on Oswald sitting on his desk. Okay, so that was the result of Angleton putting Oswald's name on the mail coverage list. Okay, that's where we that's what we learned in the last couple, in the last couple of days. Here is a link to the document that Morley is referring to . It was written in 1958, not in 1954. And here is the relevant paragraph: Here is how the document looked when it was released in 2018, and as recently as the 2023 release : The only redaction were the sentences "He said two or three hundred CIA employees are exclusively engaged on various facets of the coverage. Angleton also indicated that the cost of the operation was well over a million dollars a year." The sentence that triggers Morley -- "... the sole purpose for the coverage was to identify persons behind the Iron Curtain who might have some ties in the U. S. and who could be approached in their countries as contacts and sources for CIA." -- has been out there for five years. Morley claims the redaction was because the program "was far bigger than anyone knew," but the Church Committee published details of the program in 1976 : They also published exactly how much mail was intercepted: Of course, this is an FBI agent reporting what Angleton supposedly told them. In addition, Angleton might not have been too happy that the FBI was inquiring about HTLINGUAL. Perhaps by saying that its sole purpose was to find sources and contacts, he might have been trying to stop them from realizing that the program could provide the FBI with a bountiful supply of information. Another CIA document described the goals of the HTLINGUAL program : As you can see there were several purposes of the program: To provide leads to SR Division on contacts between individuals and organizations in the USSR and USA. To spot individuals in the USSR who were disaffected and of potential help to the U.S. To acquire sources for names to be used as addressors of mail to the USSR. To spot individuals in the U.S. who were sympathetic to Soviet interests. For possible positive intelligence take from letters opened on a selective basis. The closest to the "sole purpose" in the FBI document was to "spot individuals in the USSR who were disaffected and of potential help to the U.S." And, of course, that would certainly not describe Lee Harvey Oswald -- a bitter disillusioned young man who so hated America that he defected to the Soviet Union. Morley says the document is not a smoking gun: So, why did Angleton put his name on the list? Well, if you look at that FBI document, the sole purpose of putting somebody under mail coverage was so that they could be approached as a contact or a source. So, it stands to reason, Angleton might have had other reasons for approaching Oswald, but we can say with confidence that one of the reasons that he put Oswald on the list was he wanted to at least think about or consider the possibility that he could be a CIA contact or source. Is that a smoking gun? No, that's not exactly a smoking gun, but it is smoking-gun-proof that Angleton had a very strong interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and probably considered him for as a CIA contact or source. Now, did he? There's nothing in the file that proves that, although there would be nothing in the file, if he was, because those are the kind of things that are not put on paper. Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that Angleton had any interest in using Oswald as a contact or a source. On November 9, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald's name was added to the watch list because of his defection to the Soviet Union. The Church Committee estimated that 75% of the letters that were opened were chosen at random, not because the name was on the watch list.  The program intercepted a letter from Marguerite Oswald to her son and that was it. After the assassination, additional items of potential relevance to the assassination investigation were recovered from the HT-Lingual files, but those additional items did not include any correspondence to or from Oswald himself.   Had Angleton been specifically interested in Oswald in 1959, the program probably would have captured more than one letter, you may be thinking. Why did the HTLINGUAL program only retrieve one letter since Oswald was on the watch list? This HSCA document has an answer : There is really nothing all that mysterious here. Oswald was put on the watch list because of his defection. The program intercepted only one letter. There was no attempt to use Oswald as a source or a contact. Oswald returned to the United States. He was then taken off the watch list. Lee Harvey Oswald in Russia was not surveilled by the CIA. The people identified through HTLINGUAL were observed, not surveilled. Next up: Angleton's testimony before the HSCA. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley The Schlesinger Memo Unredacted! Several months ago, I posted an article, in association with several researchers, that showed what was contained in the redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Clairvoyance Morley somehow knows what is in the supposed 2,400 recently-discovered FBI files. Was Israel Behind the JFK Assassination? Morley discusses Israel with Tucker Carlson. Morley's Bad History Lesson Morley believes that the United States can never be great unless it solves the JFK assassination. Morley's List of 13 Documents Will Tell Us Little An analysis of the 13 documents Morley wants to see. The Schlesinger Memo, Again! Morley claims I am a CIA apologist and then misquotes me. For The Sake of Our Sanity - Release the Joannides File It would be worthwhile for the CIA to release the Joannides file just to stop the incessant posts from Jefferson Morley. Did Oswald Stay at a Luxury Hotel in Helsinki? Actually, Oswald stayed at two budget-priced hotels in Helsinki. Morley Keeps Asking the Same Questions He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers. The JFK Assassination and Truth Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts. Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination. Morley Misleads on Arthur Schlesinger's Memo on the CIA There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Podcast on New Orleans Lays an Egg Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong. Chad Nagle and Dan Storper Lay an Egg Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again! Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition. Jefferson Morley is Wrong about Operation Northwoods, Again! There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document. Did Dorothy Kilgallen Have any Special Knowledge about the JFK Assassination? Kilgallen had nothing to tell. Morley's Interview of Marina Oswald Porter Fizzles! An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald. Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot. Fred Litwin, CIA Apologist? A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist. A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey   A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963? Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?   There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963. Does it Matter Where Allen Dulles was on November 22, 1963?   Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't. Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron   Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley   W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby   And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963?   There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case?   There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four   Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

Here is one document that was released in unredacted form that is quite interesting. It has nothing to do with the JFK assassination, but touches upon JFK's war against Cuba . Here is the document in redacted form : Update This was covered back in 1966. Previous Relevant Blog Posts about the Kennedys and Cuba: A Kennedy Plot to Kill Castro? Here is some evidence that JFK approved the plots to kill Castro. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose.

Headline from an Australian news source. Another bombshell article about Underhill. Some of the coverage of the release of JFK assassination documents this week has been atrocious. For instance, this New York Post article stands out : A June 1967 memo details how a former US Army intelligence officer, Gary Underhill, fled Washington, DC, “very agitated” the day after Kennedy was shot — and claimed to a friend that a “small clique within the CIA” was behind the assassination. “The day after the assassination, Gary Underhill left Washington in a hurry. Late in the evening, he showed up at the home of a friend in New Jersey,” reads the memo, quoting from a story in the comtemporary left-wing magazine Ramparts . “He was very agitated. A small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination, he confided, and he was afraid for his life and probably would have to leave the country,” the document goes on. “Less than six months later Underhill was found shot to death in his Washington apartment. The coroner ruled it a suicide.” Underhill, a Harvard graduate and former US Army captain who worked as a journalist and intelligence officer during World War II, was said to be on a “first-name basis with many of the top brass in the Pentagon” and on “intimate terms with a number of high-ranking CIA officials.” “The friends whom Underhill visited say he was sober but badly shook. They say he attributed the Kennedy murder to a CIA clique which was carrying on a lucrative racket in gun-running, narcotics, and other contraband,” the Ramparts passage reads. It noted that the CIA clique allegedly killed Kennedy because he caught “wind” of their business and was “killed before he could ‘blow the whistle.’” Underhill’s suicide was also called into question since he had been found with a gunshot wound behind his left ear, but Asher Brynes, his writing partner who found his body, said, “Underhill was right-handed.” Anti-climactically, the memo — created in response to a much-criticized 1967 probe of the assassination by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison — described Underhill’s connection to that investigation as “tenuous” and did not address the claims reported by Ramparts at all. Here is the unredacted document on Gary Underhill. This is not a new document - it was first released in 1998 . A few passages are now unredacted - and all of the redactions relate to a supposed friend of Underhill's, Samuel Cummings.. On page four of the document from 2022, we find this passage: Here is the unredacted paragraph: On page five of the document from 2022, we find this other passage: Here is the unredacted paragraph: Another redaction from page five: Here is that paragraph unredacted: In 2021, I covered the Underhill story here. There is no doubt that Underhill was emotionally disturbed and that his suicide had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. The person who found his body accepted that he had committed suicide - he was having a lot of personal difficulties and he had separated from his wife a year earlier.

Garrett (Gary) Underhill was born in 1915 in Brooklyn, New York. He graduated from Harvard in 1937 and worked for LIFE Magazine from 1938 to 1942 as a researcher on military affairs. He then served in the U.S. Army from July 1943 to July 1946, working with military intelligence on its various publications. In October 1945 Underhill received a citation for his superior work. I could not find much hard information about Underhill's job after the war. Supposedly he worked in Civil Defense and in 1963 he was research assistant to Charles Murphy, a military specialist for Fortune magazine. On May 8, 1964, Gary Underhill committed suicide. Was he murdered? Was his death suspicious? Penn Jones discussed Gary Underhill in the second volume of his Forgive My Grief series: Bill Turner also discussed Underhill in his article "The Inquest" for Ramparts Magazine in June 1967: Jim Garrison mentioned Gary Underhill in his October 1967 Playboy Magazine interview : Bill Turner returned a second time to Underhill in his January 1968 article "The Garrison Commission" for Ramparts Magazine : And even today, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio use Gary Underhill as evidence of CIA involvement in the assassination: (page 98 of Destiny Betrayed ) "On the evening of November 22, 1963, Gary Underhill was a deeply troubled man. What he had learned, and the fact that they knew he had learned it, were too much for him. He had to escape. Once he was out of Washington, he could regain his equilibrium. Then he could decide what to do. He had friends in New York he could talk to without fear of the word getting back to Washington." So, what really happened? The day after the assassination, Underhill showed up at the house of Robert and Charlene Fitzsimmons, two of his friends. Mrs. Fitzsimmons said that: "He seemed terrible scared, excited and unstrung and went on and on. He kept repeating that he hadn't been drinking. I thought he was hysterical, paranoid or something. I mentioned that we were catching a freighter to Spain and he said he would probably have to do the same, to get out of the country. It became clear to me that he was really scared." (Edward Cohen phone conversation with Charlene Fitzsimmons). Robert Fitzsimmons was upstairs sleeping, and Charlene did not wake him. Underhill rambled for an hour and half, and she tried to get him to leave. He mentioned that "Kennedy is going to blow the whistle on the CIA, and said that the Far East section of the CIA had been behind the assassination." Robert Fitzsimmons described what happened: "He told Charlie [Charlene] that the Kennedy murder wasn't as cut and dried as it might appear. A small clique in the C.I.A. were responsible...According to Underhill, they were conducting a lucrative business in the Far East in narcotics, gun-running, and other contraband, manipulating political intrigue to serve their ends ... He spelled all of this out in great detail to Charlie. As his story went, Kennedy got wind of something going on so he was killed before he could blow the whistle." (Robert Fitzsimmons letter to John Donovan) Underhill feared for his life and wanted the Fitzsimmons to put him up. Robert Fitzsimmons said that "Charlie thought he had gone completely mad." They wouldn't put him up and Underhill left. They never saw him again. From that point on, we know little about the actions of Gary Underhill. He did not write anything about the assassination. He did not approach the FBI or the Warren Commission. On May 8, 1964, Underhill was found in his apartment unconscious by Asher Byrnes, a writer for The New Republic , and an unnamed medical student. He had a bullet wound in his head and a pistol was found in his right hand. The coroner conferred with the Homicide squad and ruled it a suicide. An acquaintance of Underhill's wrote to him after he heard some stories from the Fitzsimmons. He received this reply from Underhill's wife. Donovan wrote back a letter of condolence and asked how Underhill died. He received this letter from Mrs. Underhill: Donovan wrote back asking for detail of Underhill's suicide and then received this letter: Donovan wrote back for more information but did not get a reply. He then wrote a letter to Representative William Ryan: The questions in the above letter were based on information from Jones Harris. Harris told Donovan he had discussed Underhill's suicide with Byrnes and the student who was also supposedly there when Underhill was discovered. Representative Ryan replied: Ryan sent a second letter to Donovan: Here is the letter: Here is the death certificate: You might think that this would end the Underhill story. Asher Byrnes said that he "accepts the suicide story." Ed Cohen, a stringer for Ramparts who was also in touch with Harris, wrote that "Byrnes was the one who found Underhill's body, and says there were probably good reasons for suicide, since he had some personal difficulties, including the fact that he and his wife had parted a year earlier : Interesting that Byrnes says that Underhill "had no closer connection to the crime than the newspapers like everyone else" Cohen's efforts for Ramparts did not pay off, but as you can see above, Bill Turner included Underhill in two of his Garrison articles. John Donovan then wrote Jim Garrison in 1967: Some comments on this letter: Interesting that the Fitzsimmons never heard back from Underhill after their trip to Spain. They didn't reach out to talk to him, which seems to indicate they weren't close friends. Donovan had only met Underhill a couple of times. Hardly a close friend. He wrote Ogle a letter with additional questions about Underhill's suicide but did not hear back. I am not surprised. Donovan suspected that Falcon Aeronautics "had all the outward qualifications of a CIA dummy corporation." Underhill had a "letter of marque" from the Israelis which authorized him to sell Israeli machine guns. "Allegedly a gunrunner to Latin American took the model machine gun away from Underhill because of his erratic behavior, but the investigator is convinced that Underhill 'got around and was knowledgeable.'" Huh? Donovan offered the story of Underhill's suicide to LIFE magazine, Ramparts and other organizations. He said that LIFE was interested but backed off because "they felt that Underhill was emotionally disturbed." Donovan noted that "I fully realize that this whole matter may prove to be nothing more than another wild story based on the ravings of a disturbed personality." Robert Fitzsimmons also wrote to Jim Garrison: All of a sudden, Fitzsimmons brings Clay Shaw into the affair. Perhaps this was his way of getting Garrison interested in the story. In fact, most of his letter is about the person who might have been Shaw. Garrison has a note at the bottom: "Note: The special interest of this letter lies in the attached list of statements made by Underhill." I like Mr. Fitzsimmons description: "isolated, out-of-context statements that my wife remembers Gary making that morning." Here are those statements: Convincing, no? You'd expect someone who worked for the CIA to have some more specific information about what might have happened. Well, Garrett Underhill did not work for the CIA : Here is a more detailed view: The reality is that Gary Underhill had no inside information about the CIA. As John McAdams pointed out, "He was, quite simply, a mentally unstable fellow who thought there was a JFK conspiracy, just as many other (stable and unstable) Americans did." (Page 109 in JFK Assassination Logic ) And there was no relationship between Falcon Aeronautics and the CIA: One conspiracy theorist who wasn't impressed was Gary Schoener. Here is an excerpt from a letter he sent to Vince Salandria: Unfortunately, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio links the Gary Underhill story to other events and discerns something malignant: (page 98 in Destiny Betrayed ) "The remarkable thing about the above events [the Nagell story] is that they all happened either in advance of the assassination -- Rose Cheramie, Clinton-Jackson, Nagell; the day of the assassination -- Banister beating Martin; or within just a day or two after the assassination -- Bertrand's call to Andrews, Ferrie searching for his library card. They all appeared to originate in and around New Orleans. But there was another episode that occurred in the northeast, which supplied a connection with these local events to Washington. Like the above, this remarkable incident was also suppressed" It's all just noise, but DiEugenio can see a connection. The problem is that Rose Cherami did not have foreknowledge of the JFK assassination; the Clinton-Jackson sightings of Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald were most certainly manufactured; Nagell was a very sick man who also had no foreknowledge of the JFK assassination; Guy Banister beat Jack Martin because of unauthorized long distance phone calls; the Bertrand call was a figment of Dean Andrews' imagination; and the fact that Ferrie searched for his library card does not indicate consciousness of guilt. Here are relevant links for the above: Rose Cherami Debunking the Rose Cherami story was a lot of fun. Steve Roe was an enormous help and he made an important new find. An Important New Find Regarding Rose Cherami An article from 1957 directly relates to her credibility. Did Dr. Wayne Owens Hear Rose Cherami Predict the JFK Assassination? Here are articles from the Madison Capital Times about Dr. Owens. The conspiracy theorists don't like to mention the later articles. Did Rose Cherami Ever Work For Jack Ruby? There is no evidence that Cherami ever worked for Jack Ruby. Did Rose Cherami Watch the Dallas Motorcade on Television? A Garrison document claims that Cherami watched the Dallas motorcade on television. Francis Fruge's Conversations with Rose Cherami about the JFK Assassination What did Cherami actually say to Francis Fruge? Did Anybody Hear Rose Cherami Predict the JFK Assassination? There is no evidence that anybody heard Cherami predict the JFK assassination. Did Rose Cherami Provide Valuable Information on Dope Smuggling? Her information was wrong. Jim Garrison (and Others) on Rose Cherami Jim Garrison didn't mention Cherami in his books. Was Sergio Arcacha Smith with Rose Cherami in November 1963? There is no credible evidence that Sergio Arcacha Smith was with Cherami in November 1963. Was Rose Cherami Murdered? Of course conspiracy theorists now believe Cherami was murdered. Richard Case Nagell A Wrap-Up of the Richard Case Nagell Story The Importance of Richard Case Nagell to Some Conspiracy Theorists Was Richard Case Nagell the "Most Important Witness There Is"? Jim Garrison and a few conspiracy theorists think Nagell is a very important witness. But is he really? Genesis of the Richard Case Nagell story Did David Kroman Crack the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? David Kroman met Richard Case Nagell at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Stephen Jaffe, a Garrison volunteer, wrote a memo, relating Nagell's story through the eyes and ears of David Kroman. Richard Case Nagell Shoots Up the State National Bank in El Paso... Nagell was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years, but his conviction was overturned because of startling new evidence. Richard Case Nagell and the JFK Assassination Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination? There is no credible evidence that Nagell had any foreknowledge of either Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. Did Richard Case Nagell Meet Lee Harvey Oswald? Nagell claims he met Oswald in Japan, Texas, Mexico City, and New Orleans. There is no credible evidence that he ever met Oswald. Did Richard Case Nagell Warn Fidel Castro about the Assassination? Nagell went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and even played ping-pong with the man. Insane Conspiracy Theories about Richard Case Nagell Who was Leon Oswald? Richard Case Nagell said that he knew the two Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. Some conspiracy theorists believe this madness. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Combine one part crazy and one part ridiculous and what do you come up with? An early attempt at a unified conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. Two Smoking Guns of the Richard Case Nagell Story Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story? Nagell sent conspiracy theorist Dick Russell one page of a military intelligence file which seemed to indicate that he was monitoring Oswald and his wife on behalf of the CIA. But does the whole document really show that? Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story Did Richard Case Nagell have an Oswald Military ID in his possession when he was arrested in September 1963? Richard Case Nagell and Jim Garrison Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial? Richard Case Nagell believes that he wasn't called to testify at Clay Shaw's trial because his testimony would have blown up Jim Garrison's case. Jim Garrison Discusses Richard Case Nagell At a conference in September 1968, Garrison and his investigators discuss his face-to-face meeting with Nagell in New York City. Richard Case Nagell Sends Jim Garrison on a Wild-Goose Chase William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, tried to retrieve a tape that Nagell said contained the voices of three JFK assassination conspirators. Richard Popkin Writes Garrison About Richard Case Nagell Richard Popkin, author of "The Second Oswald," writes Jim Garrison about Richard Case Nagell. Garrison staffer Tom Bethell thought the Nagell lead was useless. Richard Case Nagell's Mental Health Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension Nagell won a full disability pension in 1982 and the 60+ page court case provides complete details on his mental problems. Why Did Richard Case Nagell Shoot Up the First National Bank of El Paso? Richard Case Nagell told a psychiatrist why he shot up the bank in El Paso in 1963. Richard Case Nagell's Family Speaks about his Mental Health The FBI spoke to Nagell's ex-wife, his mother, his sister, and one of his friends. They all agreed that Nagell had significant mental health problems. Richard Case Nagell Visits Europe in 1969... Nagell visited the American consulates in Zurich and Barcelona in 1969. He was a deeply disturbed man. Richard Case Nagell in Europe, 1970 Edition More shenanigans in Europe in 1970. Richard Case Nagell's Evidence Richard Case Nagell's Nonexistent Evidence None of the so-called evidence that Nagell promised would materialize on his death has shown up. Did this evidence ever exist? David Ferrie's Library Card Did Lee Harvey Oswald Have David Ferrie's Library Card? Guy Banister and Jack Martin Why did Guy Banister Pistol-Whip Jack Martin? The Clinton Witnesses Was Jack Ruby in Clinton with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? Michael Lesser has Died, R. I. P.; Some Thoughts on Clinton... Was Thomas Beckham in Clinton with Shaw and Oswald? Was Jim Garrison Interested in the Truth about Clinton? Harold Weisberg on Jim Garrison Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Two Here is just part of a Meagher document on the Shaw trial: I strongly suggest that people who are interested in what really happened in Clinton-Jackson read Patricia Lambert's book, False Witness .

I appeared on Fox News before the JFK files were released. As expected, there are no smoking guns. All of the documents had been previously released but with redactions. As you can see, most of the redactions are quite innocuous. I am amazed that they released many HSCA documents with the social security numbers of people who are still alive.

Thanks to David Von Pein. Primary source material for this blog post: Could The Parkland Doctors Have Seen the Back of Kennedy's Head? The Head Wound (Parkland and Bethesda Eyewitnesses) Chapter 19 from Pat Speer's manuscript (see chapters 19f, 19g, and 19h) My last blog post on the Parkland doctors discussed the issue of whether we should really care about what they thought about JFK's wounds. They were frantically trying to save Kennedy's life and had little time to thoroughly examine his wounds. I also included a major study about the errors that attending physicians make in evaluating gunshot wounds. A number of researchers have claimed that all the Parkland doctors were in agreement that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. For instance, Dr. Gary Aguilar is one such critic . With the exception of Adolph Giesecke, MD, the Parkland witnesses were unanimous in placing the skull wound rearward on the right side. No Parkland observer placed the wound solely anteriorly on the right side. (Adolph Giesecke, MD felt the wound extended from occiput to the front, but on the left side.) Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel. It is clear, however, that the Parkland witnesses described a wound in the rear of the skull on the right side. The background and qualifications of the Parkland observers make their repeated, corroborating observations compelling: there was a very obvious defect in the back of the head which was much more than a bullet entrance wound. But were they unanimous? Were they all certain as to what they had seen? Were they even in a position to really know the extent of JFK's wounds? So, let's have a look at what the Parkland doctors wrote and what they said. The purpose of this post is to show that their statements were all over the map; that they were not unanimous in their viewpoints; and that their own statements varied over the years. Dr. McClelland Dr. McClelland's written report from November 22, 1963, states that JFK had a wound in his left temple, which clearly shows he was either confused or did not get a good look at the wound :   He wrote that "cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." McClelland told Vince Bugliosi that "yes, that was a mistake. I never saw any wound of the left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this." Gerald Posner wrote that Jenkins said that when McClelland entered the emergency room, he asked the location of the wounds. Jenkins had his hand on Kennedy's left temple, and McClelland thought he was pointing to a wound. But why McClelland would write this in his report when he had supposedly seen a blow-out in the back of Kennedy's head is beyond me. On December 18, 1963, Dr. McClelland spoke to Richard Dudman of the St. Lous Post-Dispatch : Secret Service agent Elmer Moore shared the conclusions of the autopsy pathologists with the Parkland doctors: Of course, some conspiracy theorists maintain that Moore applied pressure. But McClelland denied that right up front: McClelland was then quoted in the January 1964 issue of the Texas State Journal of Medicine : "A gunshot wound of the right side of the head." When Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission he admitted that he did not raise JFK's head : Dr. McClelland's description of the head sometimes changed : McClelland testified that he looked at the head wound when he was helping Dr. Perry with the tracheostomy: Pat Speer notes that the standard position for a tracheostomy would make it hard to see behind the head : Note that McClelland specifies both that he was at the head of the table helping out with the tracheotomy when he examined Kennedy's head wound, and that this put him in position to closely examine the wound. Here is Figure PR10.1, "Position for Tracheotomy", from the textbook Emergency Medicine (edited by Harold May, 1984): This closely mirrors the position on the slide above. Note that in order to expose the neck the head is tilted sharply backwards in the tracheotomy position. So how in the heck could McClelland 1) closely examine a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head while Kennedy was in such a position and he (McClelland) was standing at the head of the table? and 2) claim his standing at the head of the table put him in "such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound"? Dr. McClelland spoke to a reporter from Newsday in 1992: Atlanta Journal, May 19, 1992 Dr. Kemp Clark : Dr. Kemp Clark and Dr. Malcolm Perry held a press conference at 2:16 PM CST : Dr. Kemp Clark : ... to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. You can see that Clark wasn't sure about the direction of the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. Notice he did not say bullets. Question : Doctor, can you describe the course of the wound through the head? Dr. Kemp Clark : We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head. Yes, they were "too busy" to be sure of the track. Dr. Malcolm Perry : There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say. Question : Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him? Dr. Malcolm Perry : It appeared to be coming at him. Question : And the one behind? Dr. Malcolm Perry : The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark? Dr. Kemp Clark : The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue. Clark is so unsure about the head wound that he theorizes that it might be an exit wound from the neck or a tangential wound. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Clark's report : He then notes that "further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point." Here is what he told the Texas State Journal of Medicine: Dr. Clark did not make many public statements but was quoted in a UPI story from 1983: UPI, The Kilgore News Herald, November 20, 1983 Dr. Malcolm Perry Dr. Perry was an attending surgeon and a vascular consultant at Parkland Hospital. His written report notes that there was a "a large wound of the right posterior cranium .. " Here is his first description of the head in his Warren Commission testimony : He says the "right posterior parietal area." Dr. Perry would not go beyond that description : Specter asked him to be more precise: When Dr. Perry was interviewed by the HSCA, he reiterated that he just glanced at the head wound : Dr. Paul Peters Dr Peters was a urologist at Parkland Hospital. He arrived in the Emergency room at 12:50 PM. Here is his description of the head wound from his testimony before the Warren Commission : Dr. Peters changed his views somewhat when talking with Gerald Posner in 1992: (page 311 in Case Closed ) I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear. Dr. Peters was quoted in an article in the Dallas Morning News on June 6, 1992: Dr. Marion Jenkins Dr. Marion Jenkins was Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Parkland Hospital. Here is his statement written after Kennedy was pronounced dead: He wrote that there "was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital).. " During his Warren Commission testimony, Jenkins got confused between left and right : He said, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area ... " He noted the error in his testimony saying there was some clotted blood there which he thought might have been a wound. In his statement to the HSCA, Jenkins said he was well positioned to have a look at Kennedy's head wound : And here is his description : Jenkins said "one segment of bone was blown out -- it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone." So, he's not sure which? The issue of Parkland doctors seeing cerebellum was dealt with in this blog post. Dr. Jenkins spoke to Gerald Posner in 1992: (page 309 in Case Closed ) From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true. We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants. Jenkins also said he was in error in saying he saw a portion of the cerebellum: (page 311) The description was my fault. When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. Dr. Charles Carrico Dr. Charles Carrico was a resident in surgery at Parkland Hospital. He described the head wound in his testimony before the Warren Commission : Dr. Carrico says the head wound is in the "occipitoparietal area." Dr. Carrico also noted that they didn't have time to examine the wounds : And here is what he told the HSCA : Now, it's the parietal occipital area and it was "above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of the head ... " Carrico also added : Dr. Carrico spoke to Gerald Posner in 1992, and he said that "we never had the opportunity to review his wounds in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life." (page 309 of Case Closed ) He also said: (page 311) We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken. Dr. Charles Baxter : Dr. Charles Baxter was a surgeon at Parkland Hospital and here is what he first observed in the emergency room when he arrived at 12:40 PM : Baxter said that the "large gaping wound" was covered at that time with blood." Here is another excerpt: Baxter testifies that "literally the right side of his head had been blown off." Specter then asks specifically about the head wound : Baxter says the head wound was "in the temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side ... " Gerald Posner spoke to Dr. Baxter and quoted him in his book, Case Closed : (page 312) He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back. Dr. Gene Akin Dr. Akin was an anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital. Here is how he described JFK's wounds to the Warren Commission : But Dr. Akin did not see the back of Kennedy's head : Dr. Ron Jones Dr. Jones was a resident physician in surgery at Parkland Hospital. Here is his description for the Warren Commission : Specter wanted Dr. Jones to be more specific : Jones noted a "tremendous amount of clot and blood," which must have affected everybody's view of the wound. And indeed Jones said just that to the ARRB : Dr. Jones also answered a questionnaire sent to him by French researcher François Carlier: Dr. Adolph Giesecke, Jr. Dr. Giesecke was an anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital. He thought the wound was on the left side: Dr. Kenneth Salyer Dr. Salyer was a resident surgeon at Parkland Hospital. Here is how he described the head wound to the Warren Commission : Dr. Bill Midgett Dr. Bill Midgett was an obstetrics-gynecology resident at Parkland Hospital who took a stretcher to the limousine when it arrived. Aguilar includes him as a back-of-the-head witness because he told Wallace Milam that the head wound was "right parietal." But Midgett only says the wound was parietal and not occipital. Further, here is what he told Gerald Posner: The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked ... and to have Mrs. Kennedy there -- none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital -- that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in the car or on the people. Dr. Charles Crenshaw Dr. Charles Crenshaw was a third-year surgery resident at Parkland Hospital. Here is a link to a older blog post about Dr. Crenshaw. Dr. Crenshaw's book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence , did not always describe Kennedy's head wound as being on the back of the head : Page 87: Dr. Crenshaw is the only source for this quote from Dr. Clark that the "whole right side" of Kennedy's head was shot off. Page 78: " .. the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing ..." Page 89: " ... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain." Page 132: Crenshaw writes that the head wound was on the "right side of the President's head." Doris Nelson Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She did not describe Kennedy's wounds for the Warren Commission. However, she did tell Ben Bradlee, Jr., in an article for the Boston Globe , that she disputed the accuracy of a tracing of an autopsy photo and said that "there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." However, Life Magazine published a photograph of Nelson and look where she placed the head wound : Please note that I will be writing a separate blog post on the Boston Globe article by Ben Bradlee, Jr. As you can see, the above statements show a wide variety of opinions about the head wound. There were no precise measurements and no precise placements of the wound -- it was described as occipital, parietal and temporal. Most doctors weren't in a good position to look at the wound, and Dr. McClelland did not even raise JFK's head. But even more surprising is that the Parkland doctors missed the huge wound at the top of Kennedy's head. The Delta fragment was a triangular fragment found in the limousine: (pages 276 - 277 of JFK Assassinated: In the Courtroom: Debating the Critic Research Community ) Most relevant to this question, however, is that McClelland did not apparently observe the large gaping defect at the top of the president’s head that indisputably existed because of the evacuation of the large Delta fragment, measuring approximately 10 x 6.5 cm (about 4 x 2.5 in.) from either just in front of or behind the coronal suture on top of the president’s head (depending on which CRC [Critical Research Community] opinion one considers most credible concerning the fragment’s source) during the shooting. If, as suggested by Aguilar and Wecht in “The Medical Case for Conspiracy,” the Parkland doctors did spend some time examining the president’s head wounds, it becomes far more curious to suppose these doctors completely missed the large chunk of missing skull on the top of the president’s head (even anterior to the coronal suture, according to some researchers) represented by the Delta fragment. Further, had the Parkland doctors taken the time to examine the president’s head wounds, they would have noticed entry wounds in his forehead or right temple—injuries that others claim were noticeable without much effort or intrusion. But they didn’t notice these. The Delta fragment came from the top of Kennedy's skull and was not occipital bone. Wagner concludes: (page 374) Finally, as I discuss in chapter 8, regardless of coronal or sagittal location for the Delta fragment, can anyone really be convinced that Parkland doctors, including McClelland and Clark, did not notice this large chunk of missing skull on top of the president’s head? Both McClelland and Clark located the blast wound mostly in the back-back side of the president’s head. How can that be? These doctors did not claim to see more than one hole, or even a big hole encompassing a larger portion of the president’s head toward the top. They saw one hole, and the facts and circumstances lead to only one plausible conclusion: The hole they saw was on mostly the top-top right of the president’s head. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on the Medical Evidence The Parkland Doctors, Part One Attending physicians often make mistakes in determining the nature of gunshot wounds. Should we care what the Parkland doctors think? Why Autopsies are Needed The attending physician in the John Lennon murder was proved wrong about his wounds. Dr. Cyril Wecht Complains Wecht complains about the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. Dr. Cyril Wecht writes to Dr. Michael Baden Wecht has a suggestion for Dr. Baden. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak Its Name, Part Two Wecht's memoir mentions his examination of the autopsy materials in 1972 but neglects to talk about his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak its Name James DiEugenio's obituary of Dr. Wecht leaves out his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. Dr. Cyril Wecht (1931 - 2024) זיכ רונו לברכה My obituary for Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Cyril Wecht Rules Out a Head Shot From the Front A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss the Head Shot   A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound Dr. Wecht believes that JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again...   Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain   JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Dr. Charles Crenshaw   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , features Dr. Charles Crenshaw to bolster its claim that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Viewers are not informed of Dr. Crenshaw's credibility problems. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Three   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers on the opinions of Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda witnesses regarding JFK's head wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on the Harper Fragment   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers into thinking the Harper fragment was occipital bone that came from the back of Kennedy's head. Dr. Joseph Dolce: Another Problematic Witness from "JFK: Destiny Betrayed"   Have a look at Dr. Joseph Dolce's bad judgment. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part One   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed uses a variety of supposed witnesses to allege that the wound in the back of Kennedy's head was one of exit. Audrey Bell is one such witness and she doesn't have much credibility. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Two   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , tries to make the case that because Parkland Hospital doctors saw cerebellum extruding from Kennedy's head wound, that it indicated an exit wound. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound    While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Autopsy   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series,  JFK: Destiny Betrayed , alleges that autopsy pathologists were told to fit the wounds to a presupposed conclusion. On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 2 with Robert A. Wagner A podcast with Robert Wagner who has written an important book on the medical evidence.

Jefferson Morley is one of many conspiracy theorists who claim the Parkland doctors all believed that there were two shooters in the JFK assassination : But did any of the Parkland doctors specifically say "two shooters"? This is very typical of loose language by Morley -- yes, he conflates what a few doctors said about the head wound, and the neck wound, into saying that their conclusions all supported two shooters. The controversy started with the wound in Kennedy's throat which appeared to Dr. Malcolm Perry to be one of entrance. I covered this controversy in this blog post. Steve Roe also covered this controversy in his excellent blog post. The controversy continued with Dr. Robert McClelland's belief that the back of JFK's head was blown out. I discussed this controversy in this blog post. But does it even matter what the doctors at Parkland thought? The ARRB talked to forensic radiologist Dr. John Fitzpatrick : I wish I had the article that he promised to provide to the ARRB. But here is a link to an important academic study. JAMA. 1993;269(16):2058-2061. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500160020005 THE ODDS that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim. Here is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences : Current guidelines call for attending physicians not to label bullet wounds: Source: The Trauma Manual, 2002 Here is an example of where an attending physician got it wrong . And so it is not clear to me why I should really care about what some doctors at Parkland Hospital thought. It's instructive to note that doctors weren't in the emergency room all that long. JFK was logged into the Parkland Hospital register at 12:38 P.M. At 1:00 P. M. he was declared dead. That is a total of twenty-two minutes - but keep in mind that not all the doctors were in the emergency room right from the beginning. Consider all that the doctors had to do: Dr. Charles Carrico first assessed JFK's condition. With the assistance of two residents and one nurse, they opened JFK's suit coat and shirt and listened for a heartbeat. Carrico put his arms up Kennedy's back and felt blood and debris but no wound. Dr. Curtis and Dr. White performed a cutdown on JFK's right ankle and inserted catheters. Dr. Carrico pushed a endotracheal tube down JFK's throat. JFK is then hooked up to a respirator. The endotracheal tube is then removed, and Dr. Perry then performed a tracheostomy. Dr. Peters then made an incision in JFK's chest to insert a tube to drain any blood on the right side of his chest. Dr. Ronald Jones then inserted a chest tube on the left side of JFK"s chest. Three residents (including Dr. Crenshaw) then made additional cutdowns on JFK"s arms and legs to infuse blood and fluids. Dr. Burkley then asked Dr. Peters to give steroids to the President. Dr. Clark then felt the carotid artery for a pulse and then asked for a cardiotachyscope (a cardiac monitor) be connected to JFK, and then starts external heart massage. Someone then got Dr. Perry a stool so he can better give heart massage. I am sure that I have left out much of what was done in the emergency room. The doctors, the residents, and the nurses all worked frantically to save JFK and in about twenty minutes he was dead. The emergency room wasn't that big and it was incredibly crowded. To think that these doctors were able to fully understand Kennedy's wounds is a silly proposition. Dr. Robert Artwohl discussed the appearance of JFK's wounds at Parkland : Ben Bradlee wrote an article on the autopsy evidence for the Boston Globe in June of 1981 in which some of the Parkland witnesses said that tracings of the autopsy photographs were not exactly what they remembered. In some interviews, some doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital emergency cart. And here is a drawing from Robert Wagner's excellent book, JFK Assassinated: In the Courtroom: Debating the Critic Research Community : (page 275 in the Kindle edition) Pat Speer also discussed JFK's position in the emergency room :   Here is an excerpt from testimony before the ARRB by Dr. Peters:  ( emphasis added ) Jeremy Gunn : Now, I am approaching this as a layperson, which may be good or may be bad. I would have imagined myself if I had seen President Kennedy in Trauma Room 1 and this part of the skull — the part that's within Line 1 of Dr. Boswell — if this were missing, I would imagine it would be noticeable to me as a layperson that there is severe damage to the skull. Is — would that be a misperception on my part? Dr. Peters : Depends on which angle you approached him. Dr. McClelland : From the front you might not — Dr. Peters : right. Dr. McClelland : — think that. Dr. Peters : That's right. Jeremy Gunn : So none of you made observations that would — or maybe the question is: Did any of you see any appearance of damage by looking just at the scalp and just at the hair that would suggest that that much of the skull was missing, or were you even in the position to be able to — Dr. Jones:  Well I think you could see the top part of the head reasonably well. He had a very thick bushy head of hair — Dr. Peters : Yeah. Dr. Jones : — and it was difficult to see down through the hair . Dr. Baxter : All — Dr. Jones : I didn't see any indentation of the skull or anything like half of the top of the head was missing. Dr. Baxter : All matted with blood.   Unless you were up there and directly examining it, I don't think anybody could make a statement from what I saw. I mean it was just one mass of blood and hair. Dr. Peters : I was amazed when I saw the first x-ray of the skull — the lateral skull of the extent of the fragmentation of the skull. I did not appreciate that I think because a lot of it was covered by scalp at the time we worked on him. We were doing a resuscitation, not a forensic autopsy . Another key issue regarding the Parkland doctors is memory. Their initial reports were all over the map, but over the years a few have become convinced that JFK was shot from the front. Pat Speer, hardly a lone-nutter, recognizes the important research of Elizabeth Loftus on memory : But who am I to blather on? Here is Loftus' own summary of her findings, as published in her memoir, Witness for the Defense (1991): "As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into corners. Memories don't just fade...they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed -- colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions...Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities." As a result, I'm forced to reject the primacy of the Parkland witnesses. Their statements have been erratic from the get-go, and have only grown more erratic over time. Those holding them up as a "smoking gun" in the JFK case both misrepresent the location of the wound described by the bulk of these witnesses, and the consistency of these witnesses as a whole. There's just no "there" there. The  ARRB itself warned people about the issues of memory:   Memories fade over time. A very important figure in the chain-of-custody on the autopsy materials, and the living person who perhaps more than any other would have been able to resolve some of the lingering questions related to the disposition of the original autopsy materials, is Robert Bouck of the Secret Service. At the time he was interviewed he was quite elderly and little able to remember the important details. Similarly, the records show that Carl Belcher, formerly of the Department of Justice, played an important role in preparing the inventory of autopsy records. He was, however, unable to identify or illuminate the records that, on their face, appear to have been written by him. Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples’ recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor’s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony. The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as “proof” for one theory or another. It's instructive to look at the early statements of the Parkland doctors. What is really clear is that there never was any unanimity about JFK's wounds. And given the fact that they were only in the emergency room a short time, and they did not have time for a proper examination of JFK's wounds, you would not expect unanimity. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on the Medical Evidence Why Autopsies are Needed The attending physician in the John Lennon murder was proved wrong about his wounds. Dr. Cyril Wecht Complains Wecht complains about the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. Dr. Cyril Wecht writes to Dr. Michael Baden Wecht has a suggestion for Dr. Baden. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak Its Name, Part Two Wecht's memoir mentions his examination of the autopsy materials in 1972 but neglects to talk about his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak its Name James DiEugenio's obituary of Dr. Wecht leaves out his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. Dr. Cyril Wecht (1931 - 2024) זיכ רונו לברכה My obituary for Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Cyril Wecht Rules Out a Head Shot From the Front A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss the Head Shot   A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound Dr. Wecht believes that JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again...   Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain   JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Dr. Charles Crenshaw   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , features Dr. Charles Crenshaw to bolster its claim that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Viewers are not informed of Dr. Crenshaw's credibility problems. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Three   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers on the opinions of Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda witnesses regarding JFK's head wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on the Harper Fragment   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers into thinking the Harper fragment was occipital bone that came from the back of Kennedy's head. Dr. Joseph Dolce: Another Problematic Witness from "JFK: Destiny Betrayed"   Have a look at Dr. Joseph Dolce's bad judgment "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part One   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed uses a variety of supposed witnesses to allege that the wound in the back of Kennedy's head was one of exit. Audrey Bell is one such witness and she doesn't have much credibility. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Two   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , tries to make the case that because Parkland Hospital doctors saw cerebellum extruding from Kennedy's head wound, that it indicated an exit wound. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound    While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Autopsy   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series,  JFK: Destiny Betrayed , alleges that autopsy pathologists were told to fit the wounds to a presupposed conclusion. On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 2 with Robert A. Wagner A podcast with Robert Wagner who has written an important book on the medical evidence.

Congresswoman Luna was the subject of this Substack post, and you can instantly see a clue that she is not quite right. Look at the book on the left side of her desk: Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK by Bonar Menninger, published in 1992. Menninger tells the story of Howard Donahue, a firearms expert, who believes that Oswald fired two shots (one missed and the other hit Kennedy and Connally) and that the fatal head shot was fired by George Hickey, a Secret Service agent in the follow-up car. Vincent Bugliosi spends several pages in his book Reclaiming History debunking Donahue's theory: (pages 1734 - 1735 in the Kindle edition) Even assuming for the sake of argument that the AR-15 was fired, Donahue’s assumption that with the possibility of the shot ending up in thousands of other places in Dealey Plaza (or Hickey’s own car or the air above), it just happened to hit Kennedy in the back of his head is more than hard to believe. But to compound the problem, after a quarter of a century of research, Donahue is unable to come up with any evidence at all that the AR-15 was even fired that day. There were nine other people riding in or on the running boards of the presidential follow-up car, each of whom testified before the Warren Commission or gave a statement, and not one of them, including Agent Glen Bennett, who was seated within a foot or two of Hickey, said the AR-15 rifle or any other weapon was fired in the car around the time of the assassination. How is it possible that none of them heard the rifle being fired right next to them if it had indeed been fired? As Kennedy aide Dave Powers, who was in Hickey’s car, put it, “Someone a foot away from me or two feet away from me couldn’t fire the gun without me hearing it.” And among the several hundred or so people in Dealey Plaza that day, not one said they saw or heard any weapon being fired inside the subject vehicle, or anywhere close to it. Indeed, Dealey Plaza witness Hugh Betzner Jr., in a November 14, 1967, letter to assassination researcher Richard E. Sprague, specifically said that he saw the rifle in Hickey’s hands and “it was not fired.”* He concluded that this is "a story unfit for human consumption," and that "other than Howard Donahue and his biographer Bonar Menninger, I know of no serious student of the assassination who takes the book or its contents seriously." (page 1739 in the Kindle edition) And Congresswoman Luna has a favorite documentary: When I asked Luna which JFK assassination documentary she found most compelling, she named What the Doctors Saw. I highly recommend it; I watched it when it first came out. It offers startling medical insights into JFK’s wounds, as seven Parkland Hospital ER doctors reunite to discuss a day they will never forget. This probably explains why she is so keen on getting the doctors who are still alive to testify before her sub-committee. I've discussed the Parkland doctors here. But stay tuned, I'll be writing more about the Parkland doctors and what they saw and what they didn't see. You can also read some comments I made about the film here. I hope she doesn't watch The Men Who Killed Kennedy. She might just call Judyth to be a witness. Previous Relevant Blog Post Is Congresswoman Luna a Luna-tic? She actually wants members of the Warren Commission who are still alive to testify.

President Trump's executive order to release JFK assassination documents has driven the press and the conspiracy world into a frenzy. The sad fact is that they are all setting themselves up for a massive disappointment. There just isn't that much to release! Before I explain further, please re-read the following article: Trump and the JFK Collection: What More to Come? Robert Reynolds, the undisputed expert on the JFK assassination records, writes on Trump's executive order. And please check out Robert's website , and his interview for my podcast. His article's two main points are as follows: First, the remaining redactions were the result of a thorough process based on strict criteria. You can actually view the transparency plans of the various agencies on the Mary Ferrell website . Second, there isn't that much material that is redacted, and the redactions themselves aren't that important. Reynolds notes that "more than 99 percent of the ARC records are open in full." Now wait a minute! What about all those “secret documents” withheld from the public, which have appeared again and again in news reports and on internet blogs? For the nth time: there aren’t any. Except for whole page redactions (now limited to only about 60 records), redactions hold back only words and phrases, names, places, and numbers. For those who bother to go through the mind-numbing effort of looking at all the documents still redacted, the tiny volume of text redacted in these, and its general lack of relevance to the JFK assassination, will be starkly clear. For instance, have a look at this document : It's a routing sheet of an article about the JFK assassination and the Secret Service. The only redaction in this document is the name of the person who wrote it. Will anybody really care when that name gets released? Here is another document with a fairly pedestrian redaction : The redaction in this document refers to the job that Mr. Fulton held at the U. S. Consulate in Helsinki. This document on Warren Commission critic Joachim Joesten has two redactions about who the memo was routed to : You can do this yourself and go through all of the documents in the transparency plan. And, of course, there are many documents with the social security number of a living person. Here is one such record : There are well over 100 HSCA Payroll records with redacted social security numbers. Here is a Garrison document with a redacted social security number . Here is an HSCA Outside Contact report with a redacted social security number. So once the currently-redacted files are released we will learn almost nothing about the assassination itself. We may learn a bit more about CIA operations in Mexico City and we will learn more about the Cold War and the war against Fidel Castro. Judge John Tunheim has repeatedly told the public that there are no smoking guns in the remaining redactions. Here is a quote from the Boston Globe : But the release of those records, which were supposed to all have been made public by 2017, should go a long way to removing doubts in the minds of many people, said John R. Tunheim, a Minnesota federal judge who chaired the federal Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s that Congress created to help find and release all the Kennedy files. “I don’t think it’ll end it completely because Americans, and indeed citizens around the world, love to dig into conspiracies,” Tunheim told the Globe. “But I think it will eliminate a major reason in people’s minds why they still have doubts about what the Warren Commission concluded or what the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded. It’ll remove, for a lot of people, that last lingering doubt.” The only withheld in full documents (about 515 in total) are IRS documents and some grand jury testimony . This material is exempt from disclosure by the JFK Records Act. There are some interviews by William Manchester of Robert Kennedy and some personal letters of Jackie Kennedy. Will Trump's executive order release these documents? He'll probably need an act of Congress to make the IRS documents public, but I have no reason to oppose the release of this material. Will it add to our understanding of the assassination. Absolutely not. The records that I am most interested in are not in the JFK collection -- such as the papers of Robert Kennedy that are held in the JFK Library . This was noted in the ARRB Final Report: I welcome the release of these papers. There are also the notes of Walter Sheridan: The RFK and Sheridan documents would be very interesting. But they won't tell us much about the JFK assassination. There also might be records of the Ramsey Panel which may not be in the ARC and which could add some insights on the evaluation of the acoustics evidence by the HSCA. So of course I want this material to be released. And when any this material is released there will be the feeding frenzy in the media. Once again, all sorts of previously-released documents will be discussed as if they are new. Here is an excerpt from my book, I was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak : (pages 203 - 204 in the Kindle edition) One CIA memo, written the day after the assassination, reported that the Cambridge News in the UK had received an anonymous phone call 25 minutes before the assassination saying that they should call the American Embassy for some big news. Here’s the headline in Newsweek: Had they Googled Cambridge News and JFK they would have found that Michael Eddowes wrote about this in his 1977 book, The Oswald File . They also failed to call the Cambridge News where this had been a source of discussion for years. Senior reporter Jock Gillespie said this: “There is no way in hell that would have happened without being talked about. There are three or four of us that still get together, 'the old farts', and there's no way that wouldn't have been talked about—that would have never ever got past us. People I knew at that time wouldn't have shut up about that—it would have been published as well. That's been a windup—are you sure it isn't Cambridge Massachusetts they are talking about?" Other senior reporters, who are still alive, also disputed the story and wondered why on earth somebody would call the Cambridge Times , of all newspapers, with such a story. As Dale Myers puts it, “the assassination files are filled with examples of unsubstantiated clairvoyance relating to every aspect of the assassination story.” What would really help is the digitization of the JFK collection . Digitization would help in parsing all of the available documents for any particular name or story. You never know what new connection might become apparent once everything is online. In addition, as NARA digitizes its collection, missing documents might be found and misfiled documents may be corrected. A good example is the HSCA Outside Contact Report with Jay Stocks, a Secret Service agent in Chicago. A large part of this report is missing, and perhaps it might have been misfiled some time in the past. Full digitization might find this record. NARA's digitization project is way behind schedule. When I was at NARA last August, they told me they were digitizing the Warren Commission records first, and then they would go on to the HSCA (only a small percentage of HSCA documents are currently digizited). It's high time for an update from NARA. In addition, we need a new database of documents. Right now, the NARA website has six spreadsheets which only contains a fraction of the JFK collection. In addition, there is still material at NARA which needs processing. For instance, there are many boxes of the ARRB just sitting there : The other collection of documents that needs to be released is the massive collection of the A ssassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) . Approximately 400,000 pages have been digitized by the Mary Ferrell Foundation but they have not put these documents on line. Many audio recordings are in that collection. And that's not the whole collection. Supposedly there is a plan to digitize the material that still resides in several warehouses in the D. C. area. Lastly, there are also JFK documents held in Moscow, Minsk, Mexico City, and Havana. Those documents will tell more than the 3,000+ redactions. The Moscow documents might even tell us additional details on past KGB operations to influence the American public. The Minsk documents will tell us more about Oswald, and the Mexico City documents will tell us more about Oswald visit in September 1963. In the meantime, I suggest everybody take a deep breath. Nothing earth-shattering is going to be released.

It was a pleasure talking with Robert Reynolds, the foremost expert on the JFK assassination files, on what to expect in the upcoming releases of documents. This is the second time that Robert has been a guest on On the Trail of Delusion . Here is a link to his first appearance. Robert has recently published several important articles on the remaining documents that contain redactions. First, Robert has published the results of a Freedom of Information request about JFK records from NARA. All of the documents are there for you to download. So, get reading. Second, Robert has written an article on the redactions in the JFK records collection . Recent news stories have claimed 3600 plus ARC records with redactions. The more unreliable sources still write about “secret documents”. The figure of 3600 is off by about 1000, and none of these documents are “secret.” They are redacted. There’s a big difference by any rational measurement. Third, Robert has written about the CIA redactions as of February 2025 . Reynolds goes into detail on why documents were redacted. Fourth, Robert has put on the web a complete list of CIA redacted documents . The list includes record number, number of pages, doc date, number of redactions, and redaction category. The record numbers all have links to the document pdfs posted at NARA, so you can actually look up the docs and see for yourself what’s going on. Robert's website is a treasure trove of information about the JFK document collection. Please bookmark it and check the website often. Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : Episode 1 My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files . Episode 2 Robert A. Wagner discusses his new book, JFK Assassinated. Episode 3 Gerald Posner discusses the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories. Episode 4 Dr. Martin Kelly, Jr., discusses conspiracy theories and the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Episode 5 Steve Roe discusses the life of General Edwin Walker and Oswald's attempt to kill him. Episode 6 Gus Russo discusses his participation in the PBS Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Episode 7 Dave Perry tells some great stories about debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense. Episode 8 Nick Nalli explains some of the science behind the assassination. Episode 9 Alecia Long discusses Jim Garrison and his non-existent case against Clay Shaw. Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK. Episode 13 Nick Nalli discusses the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder Film. Episode 14 Scott Maudsley discusses Lee Harvey Oswald's antisocial personality disorder.

Once again, James DiEugenio has published an article by John Washburn that claims Larry Crafard impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald . Since I debunked the first one , I felt I had to debunk this one. A memo from Burt Griffin to staff, March 13, 1964, stated that Laverne “Larry Crafard” was one of four persons who they suspected might be impersonating Oswald.  [https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-tapes-a-re-examination] Of course, the document in question says nothing of the sort: There is nothing in that memo about impersonation. The Warren Commission was simply interested in mistaken identities. I covered all of this in this blog post. But wait, there's more! The article on DiEugenio's website claims that Laura Kittrell, a staff member of the Texas Employment Commission, interviewed a man who said he was Lee Harvey Oswald but whom she later believed was Larry Crafard. So, let's look at Laura Kittrell and see if this claim has any validity. You can download Laura Kittrell documents here, including her letter to Robert Kennedy, her 90-page manuscript, and the memo written by Gaeton Fonzi. The first mention of Laura Kittrell came right after the assassination, and it was not about her interviewing Oswald: A document by Kittrell did get to the Warren Commission: Kittrell's message is not online. Perhaps it might appear when all the Warren Commission files are digitized. On June [or July] 4, 1965, Kittrell wrote a 14-page handwritten letter to Senator Robert Kennedy. Page one of Kittrell's letter to Senator Robert Kennedy. Here is a summary of her key points: She had previously sent Robert Kennedy a 2-page letter on December 26, 1963, saying that "I could not have sent it any sooner because it took me until then to be sure of my information." "In writing you, I said as little as I possibly could, taking care to state that my letter, containing as it did the name "Murray Chotiner" in connection with the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, should pass through as few hands as possible, and that that was why I was sending it direct to you." She was concerned that she never heard from the Warren Commission but noted "I had long thought that they would get to me in due time. I dreaded the thought that they would, knowing almost certainly that it would mean the loss of my job (which I like very much) when it became known that I had side-stepped all channels of authority in writing directly to the Attorney General about matters which had occurred at my desk at the Texas Employment Commission." The name Murray Chotiner keeps on popping up: "I had seen no way of going through channels without having the name "Murray Chotiner" mentioned again and again ..." Chotiner was a long-time aide to Richard Nixon. "I wish to make it clear that this letter is not meant to accuse Mr. Chotiner of anything, it is meant for an accusation against the Warren Commission, and an extremely serious one, which I am prepared to back up, I shall come to that later." Kittrell then contacted the U. S. District Attorney and told him about a handwritten letter about her interviews with the man she knew as Oswald. He said he would send over a Secret Service man to pick it up. "At that time, I was only relieved that I was not asked to swear to anything, because I do not believe in swearing, and if I had been asked to swear, could only have refused." "When the Warren Report came out that fall, I spent many hours looking up things in the meagerly indexed, twenty-six volumes, trying to figure out from the testimony of the Employment Service personnel, why I had not been called or questioned," "I found out several things: Some of Oswald's employment service records that just had to be there, weren't." She wrote that on a counseling record card she wrote that Oswald was a "cold-blooded Marine." That card was never found. The Dallas Claims Investigation Report was also not found. "When I wrote to the Warren Commission, I was perfectly aware, and said so, that I was going out on a limb in telling them of the notations I had made on his applications (the name of Murray Chotiner, I inadvertently noted down in the space for former employers of the man I remembered as Oswald, a fantastic and incredible error about which I painfully wrote to the Warren Commission and which it would take pages to explain here, so I won't, was one of those notations I recalled), that is, I was going out on a limb if some of his application cards, and especially this one, had been lost." Kittrell then summarizes what was in her letter to the Warren Commission: "A stranger, later believed by me to have been Oswald, had taken occasion to mention to me, at my desk at the Texas Employment Commission's Industrial Office on Ross Ave, in the early fall of 1863, the name of Murray Chotiner." "A few days after this incident, a person whose name I remembered as Oswald, was sent to me by Mrs. Elrod, a claims investigator in the claims office, to be interviewed at length and to have his occupational classifications revised and expanded. He turned out to be the stranger I have already mentioned, a coincidence which brought up again the name of Murray Chotiner, a name by a most curious error, which I explained, I wrote into the young man's work history as being that of a former employer." "That I had interpreted for this man an aptitude test battery. This was the same man who had told me some fantastic story about having worked in Russia (the most ridiculous think I had ever heard). The test had suggested to me a discrepancy between his statement that he had been a sharpshooter and a certain deficiency in physical qualities measured by the test. I said in my letter I remembered this man as having below average scores in one of more of these items." "Instead of defending himself when I brought up as tactfully as I could the (to me glaring) discrepancy and apologized for the poor showing he had made, saying "well, a test isn't everything," He had said, firmly, "No ma'am, that test is right: the truth is I am not a very good shot. I just like guns, that's all." At a subsequent interview, shortly after this, a man came to be interviewed who appeared to be of German descent and who may have been Oswald. His most recent employment was in New Orleans and his wife had just had, or was going to have, a baby. He told Kittrell he had just joined the Teamsters Union. She found it weird that someone who did not know how to drive had joined the Teamsters. She asked to see his card, but the man said they had not sent it to him. Kittrell said in her letter that she was not sure this man was Oswald. Kittrell wrote that "you would question whether a person who makes below average could hit the side of a barn." "These then are the things the Warren Commission decided not to ask me about: My statements that a man I had good reason to believe was Oswald had mentioned the name of Murray Chotiner to me, and that I had written that name down, by an odd sort of error, in the place on the application which was reserved for a summary listing of former employment." "My statement that I had interpreted for this same man a general aptitude test battery during which interpretation, both he and I had commented on his marksmanship, the first having shown him as being deficient in the physical speed one naturally associates with sharpshooting, and finally, my statement, apparently more puzzling to me that it was to them, that this same young man reminded me very much of a teutonic young warehouseman from New Orleans who could not drive a car, to whom I had talked at a somewhat later interview, and who had laughed very loudly when I challenged his claim that he had newly joined the Dallas local of the Teamsters Union." "I gave them other [garbled] items which I will not go into there except to say that they could easily have been checked if I had been allowed to confront Mrs. Oswald as a person saying that I thought I remembered having seen her in the company of her husband and another man at the TEC office at a certain time (a pregnant woman talking on her hands to one companion, as though she were deaf, and then to the one apparently her husband, in normal conversational tone, a little out of my ear shot, is not the sort of thing I readily forget) Or if I had been allowed to talk with Mrs. Paine in their presence (to see if she would admit having called a Miss Kittrell at the TEC to tell her, "you can quit worrying about Mr. Oswald, he has gotten himself a job at the Texas School Book Depository, and if she at least remembered laughing when, having been told that Miss Kittrell would like to speak to Mrs. Oswald, she said that Mrs. Oswald didn't speak English, and then laughing again, when Miss Kittrell asked to put her on the phone anyhow, because she could talk to her in Spanish, and finally becoming exasperated at Miss Kittrell's responses to the information that Mrs. Oswald spoke Russian: "Russian? Why does she speak Russian?" And replying angrily "because she was born and reared in Russia, that's why," and then banging up the phone. My recollection is that I was thunderstruck to hear this, that his wife spoke Russian, I had been so convinced ... been to Russia.) "Where are the two ten-page letters I sent to the Warren Commission via the U.S. District Attorney? They are not in the twenty-six volume Warren Report. Will you please at least find out where these letters are?" Does any of this sound convincing? The continual naming of Murray Chotiner is bizarre, and it does appear that Kittrell was a student of the assassination and was just feeding back talking points about Oswald's marksmanship. Of course, there is no paperwork from the Texas Employment Commission to back up her any part of her story. Here is the TEC form on Oswald which is from 1962 : Robert Kennedy's office sent Kittrell's 14-page handwritten letter to the FBI for investigation. On August 12, 1965, the FBI spoke to W. H. Miller, District Director of the Texas Employment Commission . Kittrell told the agents the contents of her letters to Robert Kennedy, but the meeting became testy: J. Edgar Hoover wrote Robert Kennedy on August 27, 1965 : In August of 1966, Kittrell wrote the FBI : And here is the FBI's reply: Kittrell wrote a 90-page manuscript and sent it to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). I am not exactly sure when she wrote it -- Peter Whitmey claims it was in 1966. Here are some comments: She continues with her Murray Chotiner madness. His name is mentioned on fifteen separate pages, sometimes more than once. She described Oswald as wearing a motorcycle jacket when he appeared for an interview at the TEC. Oswald supposedly told Kittrell that he had an undesirable discharge; that he had a job as a messenger boy in California for six months; one interview lasted one hour and forty-two minutes and Oswald told Kittrell that Murray Chotiner was a crook; and that he wanted to work with guns. "When Mr. Oswald left that day, I was not sure that I would ever see him again, and rather hoped that I wouldn't. I did not really dislike him. It was just that he made me very, very nervous. I disapproved of what I imagined to be his lies, and the question or whether or not he had been sent to prison for killing someone was still unresolved in my mind." This section beggars belief: (pages 45 - 46) Kittrell wrote that Oswald told her "he was a man who loved to talk or think about guns." (pages 47 -48) None of this sounds real. Oswald's real DD - 214 form did not say "other than honorable." Oswald did not have a habit of talking about his "other than honorable" discharge. This all sounds like Kittrell got this from reading the Warren Report. Kittrell wrote that Oswald had an "unusual kind of intelligence." (page 50) During Oswald's second interview, in which he was given an aptitude test, this remarkable dialogue occurred: (page 54) And, then if we really want to believe Kittrell, Oswald had some angry words for President Kennedy: (page 58 - 59) Kittrell was scared -- scared that Oswald was going to inform Kennedy that he had been ill-treated: (page 60) Kittrell then discusses a phone call she received, probably in November 1963: (page 64) Her imagination was enabled. No kidding! Kittrell then writes out a transcript of a phone call with Ruth Paine in which Paine tells her that Oswald had found a job at the TSBD: (page 64) The transcript runs for three pages. After the interview in which Oswald had supposedly talked about Kennedy, he returned for another interview. (page 72) Oswald had joined the Teamsters Union. (page 77) But Oswald didn't have a union card: (page 78) Kittrell was skeptical about the Teamsters: (page 78) Kittrell than wonders if this was Oswald or an imposter: (page 79) On the one hand, it was Oswald: (page 80) On the other hand, this Oswald wore a red-checkered shirt: (page 81) Kittrell had written the Warren Commission about some of this: (page 82) Kittrell notes that it might not have been the real Oswald since he was working at the Texas School Book Depository. A few days after the assassination, Kittrell was interviewing someone for a factory job. (page 85) Then it turns out that Eva Grant, Jack Ruby's sister, had visited Kittrell looking for a job. (page 87) And then after the Warren Report was published, Kittrell had a realization: (page 88) A conspiracy theorists' dream! Kittrell had identified Larry Crafard as the Teamsters fellow. But why on earth would Crafard impersonate Oswald at the Texas Employment Commission? But Kittrell has doubts. She writes "sometimes I think he was Larry Crafard. I wish I could settle this in my mind, but I can't." Kittrell does not believe that Oswald killed JFK: (page 90) But Kittrell believes Oswald was part of some large conspiracy: (page 90) Kittrell had a postscript to her report: (Page 90) Note that Kittrell did not mention the name Crafard in her letter to Robert Kennedy but slips his name in at the end of her ninety-page report. Kittrell sent this report to the HSCA, but she is not mentioned in their Final Report nor in their volumes of evidence. That indicates they felt her story was not worth mentioning. However, Kittrell was interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi in July of 1978, and he wrote a ten-page memo. Kittrell was also in touch with Earl Golz of the Dallas Morning News . She told Golz a couple of new stories, which Fonzi put in this memo: Kittrell repeated these stories to Fonzi, but she did not reveal the names of the two informants. She did tell Fonzi about Oswald talking about his marksmanship: While this is true, the Marines made an error and marked his score as marksman. So, I wonder if Oswald knew that he had actually made sharpshooter. Kittrell told Fonzi about the third encounter in which she wasn't sure the man was Oswald: She was "dirt tired." Of course, she also wrote this in her manuscript: Gaeton Fonzi sent the notes of his interview with Kittrell to Peter Whitmey who writes that there was no mention on Crafard there either . Fonzi wrote him an email and said "I recall Kittrell and remember coming away from the interview with her thinking she went way up and way down on the scale of validity but I had a tough time figuring what was up or down. I don't recall anything about Crafard." Whitmey also sent a couple of articles about Kittrell in The Fourth Decad e to Crafard for his comments: I contacted Curtis at his home in Oregon after sending him the article, and he emphatically denied ever posing as Oswald, and stated to me that he was far too self-conscious (because of some missing teeth) to have ever "laughed out loud" as described by Ms. Kittrell. Let's go back to the article on James DiEugenio's webpage : E specially relevant is the Commission staff giving attention to Crafard being a possible decoy for the set-up of Oswald. But not calling Kittrell to the stand. The dossier shows that Kittrell was asked by the person she interviewed in October 1963 if she had visited the State Fair. She said no. Crafard told the FBI that he came to Dallas with the State Fair on 15 October 1963 and was a roustabout for a side show. (Crafard Exhibit 5226, Warren Commission, [https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Crafard_Ex_5226.pdf] ). If it was Crafard, did he ask that question to ensure she would not remember seeing him in that role? If what Kittrell said is true, then she would indicate two things. Firstly, Crafard--as the Commission suspected--was impersonating Oswald in Dallas in November 1963.  Secondly, on the morning of 22 November 1963, the manager of the Texas Theater was in some way made aware of the police using his building for some purpose later in the day. Overall, Kittrell’s actions and attention would make redundant any plan to involve her in painting a story of an unstable Oswald.  She would be a woman who not only wasn’t duped but was dangerous. Kittrell was dangerous? No, she was delusional. And, once again, the Warren Commission never "suspected" that Crafard was impersonating Oswald. As indicated above, they only felt that he might have been mistaken for Oswald. Laura Kittrell's stories were used in the book Chokeholds in the chapter "Oswald was Impersonated." It appears to me that Kittrell was a student of the JFK assassination and was reading the critical literature. Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA ignored her story, and that makes total sense. Update: In 1975, Kittrell wrote a letter to Time Magazine : Previous Relevant Blog Posts about Larry Crafard Chokeholds Uses a Fake Story Mort Sahl made up a quote about Larry Crafard that was used in the Chokeholds book. Did Larry Crafard Impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald? A ridiculous article alleges that Crafard impersonated Oswald. Jim Garrison Names the Grassy Knoll Gunman! Garrison told a journalist that Larry Crafard was a gunman on the grassy knoll. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Chokeholds : Chokeholds Uses a Fake Story The book treats a Mort Sahl quote as if it was correct. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 18 Chokeholds leaves out a lot of information about Aloysius Habighorst. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 17 Bleau doesn't tell his readers about Roger Craig's credibility problems. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 16 Bleau believes the Rose Cherami story. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 15 Bleau claims the Shaw jury believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. This is just not true. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 14 Bleau doesn't tell you everything about Lyndon Johnson's feelings towards the Warren Report. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 13 Bleau leaves out some important details about the beliefs of Burt Griffin. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 12 Bleau leaves out an important paragraph from Alfredda Scobey's article on the Warren Commission. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 11 Bleau misleads readers on the testimony of John Moss Whitten. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 10 Bleau gets it all wrong on Dr. George Burkley. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 9 Bleau doesn't tell the whole story about John Sherman Cooper. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 8 Bleau claims that J. Lee Rankin questioned the findings of the Warren Report. This is just not true. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 7 Bleau tries to make it appear that Dallas policeman James Leavelle had doubts that Oswald could be found guilty at a trial. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 6 Bleau gets it all wrong on the FBI Summary Report. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 5 Bleau discusses the conclusions of the HSCA but leaves out it most important finding. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 4 Bleau leaves out some important details about a Warren Commission staffer. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 3 Was Oswald a loner? Bleau says no, and then says yes. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 2 Bleau leaves out some important details about Malcolm Kilduff. Paul Bleau Chokes An introduction to Paul Bleau's new book,  Chokeholds . Previous Relevant Blog Posts about the Second Oswald Did the Second Oswald Fly to Roswell? The book Chokeholds has a crazy story about Roswell. Lee Harvey Oswald was not Impersonated at Bolton Ford Here is a simple solution to the incident at Bolton Ford. Exclusive: Jim Garrison Tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald...   A tape of Jim Garrison being interviewed by the HSCA. Did Kerry Thornley Lie About Oswald's Height? Thornley misjudged Oswald's height. So what? Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar?   Jim Garrison believed it was important to find the man with a scar. Was Lee Harvey Oswald Arrested in New Orleans in 1962? Oswald was not in New Orleans in 1962. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Add one part crazy, one part ridiculous, and what do you get? Who was Leon Oswald? He looked like Lee Harvey Oswald but he was someone else. Jim Garrison Discusses the Two Oswalds At a meeting with his investigators, Garrison discusses the two-Oswald theory. Did Harvey Wade See the Second Oswald? Wade claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club. Which Oswald was it? Garrison, White-Collar Demagogue Was Garrison the second Oswald? Was Thornley the Second Oswald? Yes, Again! Yet more proof that Thornley was the second Oswald. Was Kerry Thornley the Second Oswald? Garrison writes the HSCA about his theory. Did Valentine Ashworth Meet the Second Oswald? Ashworth met an "Oswald" in a couple of locations. Another Wacky Garrison Investigative Memo - Was Oswald Impersonated? A really ridiculous Garrison memo on the height of Lee Harvey Oswald.

There is a most incredible story in The JFK Assassination Chokeholds : Air Force Sergeant Robert G. Vinson claims to have a front seat to what became of the alleged Oswald lookalike after the assassination. Vinson was stationed in Colorado, but had business in Washington, at Andrews Air Force Base and was looking to catch a ride back to Colorado on a military plane on November 22, 1963. Vinson was notified to board a C54 cargo plane that was headed to Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. The plane was unmarked, except for a logo of an egg-shaped earth crossed by white grid marks, which Vinson later learned was a logo for the CIA. Vinson boarded the empty plane without signing a flight log, which was typically required. Two men with coveralls boarded the plane and walked to the front without speaking to Vinson. At 12:29, the pilot announced that the president had been shot. Immediately after that announcement, the plane banked left and changed course to go to Dallas.  In Dallas, the plane landed in a rough, sandy area alongside the Trinity River. It was not a runway. Vinson thought it looked like a road that was under construction. The plane did a U-turn and kept the engines running. Then, the cargo door opened. Vinson saw two men running toward the plane from a jeep. One of the plane’s pilots opened the passenger door. The two men boarded the plane, passing Vinson’s seat without looking at or speaking to him. The men carried nothing and sat right behind the cockpit. They did not speak to each other or the other pilots. The taller of the two men was 6 to 6’1′, weighing 180 to 190 pounds and looked Latino. Vinson thought he was Cuban.  The shorter man was Caucasian between 5′7″ to 5′9″ and weighing 150 to 160 pounds. When Vinson later saw the video of Lee Harvey Oswald under arrest, he identified the man as being identical to Oswald. The passengers quickly exited the plane when it landed. Vinson did not recognize where he was and was later told that he had landed at Roswell Air Force Base. He was not allowed to leave the base because it was on alert. Vinson was finally allowed to leave and returned to Colorado, where he told his wife about the incident. He didn’t tell anyone else because he didn’t believe it was safe after Oswald was killed by Ruby. Chokeholds took this story from the 2003 book, Flight from Dallas: New Evidence of CIA Involvement in the Murder of President John Kennedy , by James P. Johnston and Jon Roe In 1964, Vinson claims, he signed a secrecy agreement and was then sent to Washington for psychological and physical tests at CIA headquarters. They offered him a job, but he turned it down. Three months later, he was ordered to go work at the CIA project at Area 51. Supposedly, they gave him this job so that they could monitor him. The authors of Chokeholds believe this is another example of the impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald. But even they are unsure as to why this was happening: There are many instances of someone saying that they saw Oswald when we know that Lee Harvey Oswald was elsewhere. The fact of these observations, combined with the details of what the impersonator was saying in each respective instance, demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Oswald was impersonated. The fact of impersonation reinforces the conclusion that Oswald alone did not kill President Kennedy. There is no plausible reason why a lone gunman would be impersonated so many times. The frequency of these instances clearly increased in the days, weeks and months before the assassination, and also on the day of the assassination, which clearly shows a designed plot to lay the blame on Oswald within hours of the assassination. As they write: "There is no plausible reason why a lone gunman would be impersonated so many times." Of course, the authors never consider that these so-called sightings are actually quite normal given the immense nature of the JFK assassination. For instance, Oswald was supposedly seen in Montreal Canada, in 1963 at a pro-Cuba rally . There is no evidence that Oswald ever traveled to Canada, and when the RCMP published photographs of the rally, it was clear that Oswald was not there. Oswald was also "seen" in Alice, Texas in early October of 1963. But we know that he was in Dallas. Any high-publicity crime will attract people with stories. Police information lines become clogged with all sorts of stories -- just have a look at this one: Attorney Tony Buzbee publicized a hotline earlier this week for victims of Sean “Diddy” Combs and those who knew about his crimes. The number has been flooded with over 12,000 calls in the first 24 hours since Buzbee made it public — a massive influx from the approximately 3,200 they received in the hotline’s first 10 days. John McAdams' book JFK Assassination Logic lists several examples of false sightings in recent crimes: PECOS, January 12, 2001 - The continuing manhunt for the seven escapees of a maximum-security prison in South Texas has resulted in numerous false sightings in recent weeks, two of which occurred in the Pecos area on Thursday. Police are still on the hunt for murder suspect Malcolm Naden with sightings being reported each week. So it's not surprising that there were a lot of Oswald "sightings." You can find a number of them in the 26 volumes and the Warren Commission took note of the issue. And there was also this memo : Being mistaken for Oswald is not the same as impersonating Oswald. You can read Vinson's affidavit here . Here is an excerpt: (JPJ - James P. Johnston, a lawyer who helped Vinson with this story; RGV = Robert Griel Vinson) JPJ : Alright, now, Mr. Vinson, did you believe that you may have recognized one of these men that got on the plane for this flight that stopped in Dallas and picked them up and then went on to Roswell? RGV : At the time they got on, no I didn’t recognize either one. But later on after I saw all the pictures and everything coming out on Oswald, this gentleman that got on the plane resembled him an awful lot and I can’t say it was him, but he sure looked like him. "He sure looked like him." This story has gotten very little traction on the conspiracy bulletin boards. Larry Hancock, one of the more responsible conspiracy theorists, doesn't believe the story : OK, I'm going to do it again.....this has been discussed many times earlier here and in other venues. I was there when Vinson's lawyer first presented his story at a Lancer conference - he showed up unannounced, asked for time and the only thing we could do was let him go on during the lunch break. I listened, took copious notes, and tried to talk to him afterwards however he literally ran (well walked very quickly at least) out of the area, refusing to stay or take questions. Over several years I exchanged letters and made phone calls to him, trying to approach Vinson directly - which he never would allow. I submitted a number of questions and issues which he also failed to address. Ultimately when his book was published it asked readers to respond and I went back again with questions - and received no response. It should be noted that his lawyer has some pretty strong general conspiratorial views on his own, whether that influenced Vinson or not I can't say. There are a number of issues with this story: First, is it conceivable that a C-54 would land in and take off from the Trinity River riverbed? It's a pretty large plane with a wingspan of 118 feet. And nobody noticed this plane landing or taking off? According to Vinson's story, the plane landed in Dallas at 12:30 PM but took off somewhere between 3:00 PM and 3:30 PM. Would it not have been easier for an Oswald impersonator to just leave by car, rather than wait around for a few hours for a flight? Was it really necessary to send a pretty big plane to Dallas to spirit the Oswald impersonator to Roswell? Second, it took Vinson over thirty years to tell his story. He claims this is because he signed a secrecy agreement, but it beggars belief that he would keep such a hot story to himself -- and not even contact the HSCA when they were reinvestigating the JFK assassination. Third, there are no supporting witnesses to this story. Fourth, Larry Hancock points out that it would have been unlikely that a plane landing at a SAC base operating at Defcon3 would just allow all its passengers to deplane and walk over to the terminal building. Fourth: Vinson spins this very unlikely story: (from his affidavit) JPJ : So on November 21, 1963, you were in Col. Chapman’s office and talking with him personally? RGV : Yes, I was talking with him and he was going to make arrangements for me to go to the Pentagon from there. JPJ: You were to se [sic] someone at the Pentagon? RGV : Yes, I was to go to the Personnel Office in the Pentagon. JPJ : Do you recall Col Chapman’s first name? RGV : No, I don’t. JPJ: Alright, but he was a full colonel? RGV : Full colonel. JPJ : Alright, and as you were . . . That’s a yes I take it, that he was a full colonel? RGV : Come to think about it, I can’t remember. JPJ : Alright, it may not be that important. RGV : I just called him Col. Chapman. JPJ : Sure. Alright. Then, what took place while you were there in Col. Chapman’s office that you overheard that you thought was a little unusual. RGV : I only heard one side of the conversation, but I did hear him say that he would highly recommend that the President not go to Dallas, Texas, on Friday, because there had been something reported, which I didn’t hear what it was. JPJ : Alright, was this a telephone conversation that you overheard? RGV : Yes, this was a telephone conversation. I only heard his voice and his side of it. JPJ : Alright, do you recall whether he had called someone in your presence or whether a call came in while you were there? RGV : No, the call came in while I was there. JPJ : Alright, and is that the substance of what you remember? RGV : Yes, pretty much the substance of it. I do remember that part of it because he was pretty pronounced in saying that he would highly recommend that the President not go over there. JPJ: To Dallas? RGV : To Dallas. JPJ : Alright. Where did you go then from ... RGV : There was one other conversation. . . something about the advance group of congressmen have already left. JPJ : Who said that? RGV : He did. JPJ : Chapman? What a coincidence that Vinson hears this conversation one day before November 22nd. James Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable includes this story and gives Vinson 6 1/2 pages. And James DiEugenio includes it in his review of Douglass's book : He then wraps this up by saying that this double was ultimately flown out of Dallas on a military transport plane. This is based on the testimony of retired Air Force officer Robert Vinson. It is contained in a 52-page affidavit given to his attorney James P. Johnston of Wichita, Kansas. I'll give the last word to John McAdams with an excerpt from his book, JFK Assassination Logic: (page 42 in the Kindle edition) This theory originated with a philosophy professor named Richard Popkin who wrote a book titled The Second Oswald in 1966, but it has echoed through the years and even appeared in Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK . Obviously, the theory has logical problems. It would be an incompetent conspiracy indeed that would have a fake Oswald running around when the real one was someplace where multiple reliable witnesses—in some cases, his own wife—could provide an alibi for him. In fact, to account for all the Oswald sightings, a second Oswald alone would not suffice. A whole crew would be necessary account for them all. Douglass, fully aware of the problem, admits that there were “too many Oswalds in view, with too many smuggled rifles, retelling a familiar story to too many witnesses.” He attributes this predicament to “the bungling redundancy of cover stories” and explains that “in an overambitious plot, the scapegoat wound up being in too many places at the same time.” So these otherwise brilliant plotters sent out way too many Oswalds to do way too many things that were designed to frame the real Oswald. That assumption is entirely ad hoc on Douglass’s part. And pursuing such a tactic would be monumentally stupid on the conspirators’ part. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Lee Harvey Oswald was not Impersonated at Bolton Ford Here is a simple solution to the incident at Bolton Ford. Exclusive: Jim Garrison Tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald...   A tape of Jim Garrison being interviewed by the HSCA. Did Kerry Thornley Lie About Oswald's Height? Thornley misjudged Oswald's height. So what? Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar?   Jim Garrison believed it was important to find the man with a scar. Was Lee Harvey Oswald Arrested in New Orleans in 1962? Oswald was not in New Orleans in 1962. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Add one part crazy, one part ridiculous, and what do you get? Who was Leon Oswald? He looked like Lee Harvey Oswald but he was someone else. Jim Garrison Discusses the Two Oswalds At a meeting with his investigators, Garrison discusses the two-Oswald theory. Did Harvey Wade See the Second Oswald? Wade claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club. Which Oswald was it? Garrison, White-Collar Demagogue Was Garrison the second Oswald? Was Thornley the Second Oswald? Yes, Again! Yet more proof that Thornley was the second Oswald. Was Kerry Thornley the Second Oswald? Garrison writes the HSCA about his theory. Did Valentine Ashworth Meet the Second Oswald? Ashworth met an "Oswald" in a couple of locations. Another Wacky Garrison Investigative Memo - Was Oswald Impersonated? A really ridiculous Garrison memo on the height of Lee Harvey Oswald. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Chokeholds : Chokeholds Uses a Fake Story The book treats a Mort Sahl quote as if it was correct. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 18 Chokeholds leaves out a lot of information about Aloysius Habighorst. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 17 Bleau doesn't tell his readers about Roger Craig's credibility problems. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 16 Bleau believes the Rose Cherami story. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 15 Bleau claims the Shaw jury believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. This is just not true. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 14 Bleau doesn't tell you everything about Lyndon Johnson's feelings towards the Warren Report. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 13 Bleau leaves out some important details about the beliefs of Burt Griffin. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 12 Bleau leaves out an important paragraph from Alfredda Scobey's article on the Warren Commission. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 11 Bleau misleads readers on the testimony of John Moss Whitten. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 10 Bleau gets it all wrong on Dr. George Burkley. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 9 Bleau doesn't tell the whole story about John Sherman Cooper. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 8 Bleau claims that J. Lee Rankin questioned the findings of the Warren Report. This is just not true. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 7 Bleau tries to make it appear that Dallas policeman James Leavelle had doubts that Oswald could be found guilty at a trial. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 6 Bleau gets it all wrong on the FBI Summary Report. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 5 Bleau discusses the conclusions of the HSCA but leaves out it most important finding. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 4 Bleau leaves out some important details about a Warren Commission staffer. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 3 Was Oswald a loner? Bleau says no, and then says yes. Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 2 Bleau leaves out some important details about Malcolm Kilduff. Paul Bleau Chokes An introduction to Paul Bleau's new book,  Chokeholds .