Night Owl 9/Night Owl CD-ROM (NOPV9) (Night Owl Publisher) (1993).ISO/044a/pacific1.zip/PAC01-10.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-02-20 | 67KB

From:    [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part I thru X, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of
         President Kennedy
Date:    4 Sep 92 13:26:52 GMT

         I made the following transcript from a tape recording
                of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
                             WBAI-FM (99.5)
                       505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
                           New York, NY 10018
                             [phone]

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

GARY NULL:
There  is criticism on the part of the media to opening up the  John  F.
Kennedy  assassination  to  a  new  investigation.  However,  there  are
individuals  who are willing to challenge this stance.  They  feel  that
there  are  more than enough reasons to open up  the  Warren  Commission
findings  and  to take another look; even to convene  another  impartial
group  of researchers and investigators who have subpoena power; even  a
special  prosecutor, if necessary, to delve into this issue without  the
FBI and the CIA being the ones who are primarily responsible for  giving
the  information,  as  some  doubt  has  been  raised  concerning  their
objectivity  in  the original Warren Commission hearings  and  research-
gathering.

Our  first  guest  on  today's program is  Harold  Weisberg,  the  House
Subcommitee on Assassinations investigator, the author of a book on  Lee
Harvey  Oswald and the post-mortem, the whitewash and the  frame-up.  He
has  also  written a book on the assassination of  Martin  Luther  King.
Welcome to our program, Mr. Weisberg.  I would like you to give us  your
professional assessment of the House Select Committee on  Assassinations
-- since you were a primary investigator there -- on their findings,  on
the Warren Commission, and on ....

HAROLD WEISBERG:
I had no connection with the House Committee. I was the source for  most
of  the  stories  that appeared that were critical of them.   It  was  a
synthetic duplication of the Warren Commission. It began with the intent
(now,  I'm not talking about each individual member. I'm  talking  about
the staff who did it; especially Blakey, the general counsel and  chief-
of-staff) .... It began with the intent of putting down all the critics.
Each  hearing -- each public hearing -- began with what he  called  "the
narration",  and  he picked out the critics whose work he was  going  to
address,  and  then  the hearing was dedicated  to  debunking  them  and
proving them wrong. And I'm happy to say that there's only one critic he
managed  to avoid; and that's me. He wasn't going to pick a  fight  with
me.

All  of their [the Committee's] work was faulted in varying  degrees  of
ways,  but they NEVER investigated the crime itself.  In that, they  did
exactly  what the FBI did, and exactly what the Warren  Commission  did.
They did NOT -- any one of them -- investigate the crime itself.

Now, I think you should know that, unlike the other books, there are  no
theories  in  my  book. I'm a former investigative  reporter,  a  Senate
investigator,  an  intelligence analyst; and that's not my  bag.  And  I
don't  think  that that's what the people of the country  need  for  the
democratic  system  to work. They're factual. Now, I'm going  to  quote,
accurately from memory, a record I got through a Freedom of  Information
Act  lawsuit.   Perhaps it would help your audience to  understand  more
about where I'm coming from to say that I filed about a dozen Freedom of
Information Act lawsuits against the Government. Most of them are on the
Kennedy assassination. And most of the records I got were from the  FBI.
In  all, I have about a third of a million pages of records.  These  are
the  same ones that Oliver Stone has been promoting for himself  in  his
movie by saying that they're suppressed.

Now, from the Department of Justice and from the FBI I got a record of a
memorandum.  Nicholas Katzenabach -- who was then the  Deputy  Attorney-
General of the United States and acting Attorney-General as of the  time
in  question, because Bobby Kennedy was not there because of  the  crime
and  the  tragedy.  He [Katzenbach] wrote Lyndon  Johnson,  through  his
[Johnson's]  channel, Bill Moyers, recommending to Lyndon  Johnson  that
they had to convince the country that Oswald was alone, that Oswald  was
the  assassin, that he had no confederates who were still at-large,  and
that  the  evidence was such that he would be convicted  in  trial.  The
typed copy is dated early Monday morning the first working day after the
assassination, November 25, 1963.

I  also  happen to have gotten Katzenbach's handwritten copy,  which  he
wrote when he had no typist available on Sunday. And from the FBI I  got
a record which said that Katzenbach had discussed it with [FBI Director]
Hoover on Sunday, as soon as Oswald was killed.

So  as soon as the Government knew that there would be no trial  of  Lee
Harvey Oswald, they closed the books, the crime was solved, and that was
it. So you see, when the crime itself was never investigated, there  are
no  leads  for other people to follow. And I address this so  that  your
audience  can  understand that those people, who  develop  theories  and
advance  them as solutions, do it without a factual basis. I don't  know
of  any theory that is factually supportable by the known evidence.  And
now I'm talking about the official investigative reports of the FBI  and
things like that which do establish some fact.

GARY NULL:
Okay,  we thank you very much, Mr. Weisberg, for sharing your views  and
for  giving  us  this  insight  on  this  important  piece  of  critical
information. I appreciate your being on with us today.  Let's go now  to
another guest who is standing by, who has a different point of view, and
who  has  additional  information.  I would like  to  invite  Jim  Marrs
[author  of CROSSFIRE] onto our program again. Welcome to  our  program,
Jim.

I'd  like to pick up where we left off yesterday. For those of  you  who
were  not  here  yesterday and who didn't hear the  program,  we  did  a
careful assessment, going step-by-step through the events that led up to
the  actual  shooting, showing that the American Public has  never  been
made aware of the fact that earlier in the day, in Fort Worth, there was
also  a  motorcade  for  President  Kennedy,  but  that  motorcade   was
substantially  different.  It was VERY very heavily guarded,  on  proper
protocol, by the Secret Service. And the police were maintained, meaning
that sharpshooters were stationed on rooftops, no window was allowed  to
be opened, there was adequate protection. But all of that was  suspended
at  Dealey  Plaza  and  for  the trip  through  Dallas.  WHY?   WHO  was
responsible?   Who  caused  the rescinding of these  orders?  Those  are
questions that have to be thoroughly analyzed.

I would like just a brief summary of some of the points from yesterday -
- an overview of some of the discrepancies between what we have been led
to believe and what actually occurred.  Then I would like to go into the
area that our previous guest, Mr. Harold Weisberg has suggested  -- that
there  is  NO evidence to support any of the assassination  theories.  I
would  like you to give us YOUR information, your belief,  and  whatever
documentation  you have that could, in any way, directly or  indirectly,
tie  in  any of a number of proposed agendas such as  the  renegade  CIA
agents, the knowledge that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover could have known
or  may  have  known in advance that  the  assassination  was  imminent,
certain right-wing extremists, certain members of the military, and also
members of Organized Crime, and some anti-Castro Cubans.

Now, all of these have been alleged -- depending upon the theorist -- to
have  participated.  But you have some unique insights and and  I  would
like you to share with us some of those insights at this time.

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:
Well,  first  just let me say that the one thing I think  that  everyone
including   Mr.  Weisberg,  including  Gerald  Ford,   including   David
Bigeley(?), including everybody who is connected with this thing at this
point .... I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that  there
is substantial controversy over the death of President Kennedy and  over
the  subsequent  investigation and the medical evidence.  Now,  in  this
particular case, that confusion, that controversy, that obfuscation,  if
you  will, is the basis of what can legitimately be called  "the  cover-
up".  There should not have been a cover-up. There should not have  been
this  confusion.  This  was a case .... this was the  President  of  the
United  States, for God's sake. There was an autopsy at  Bethesda  Naval
Hospital.  There  was treatment at a reputable  hospital:  Parkland,  in
Dallas.  And  there should not be this confusion. There should  be  some
very  clear-cut answers based on scientific, medical, forensic  evidence
to  say: "Here's what happened. He was shot three times from the  rear."
Or: "He was shot once from the front and once from the rear." It  should
be  very  clear, but it's NOT. It is TOTALLY muddled. It is  TOTALLY  in
confusion.  And THAT is the nature of this cover-up. Not that there  has
never been any information, but that there has been so much information,
and so much CONTRADICTORY information that it has thrown the whole thing
into  confusion  and  controvery, so that we can't seem to  get  to  the
bottom of this. I think that is very self-evident.

Now,  who has the power to do that? And who CAN do that? And  who  could
have saved us from all of this?  The Federal Government! The  Government
who  supposedly had him autopsied. The Government who supposedly  is  in
charge  of  the investigation. It should have been clear-cut,  but  it's
not.  And,  to me, that shows, in an overview, that the  Government  has
been responsible for all this confusion, rather than clearing it up  and
actually presenting us with factual information as to what happened.  So
this  is what is causing all of the problems, because the Government  is
STILL saying: "Well, there's nothing there. It's all cut and dried." And
yet, it's not.

You can look at the evidence for yourself. For instance, in the  medical
evidence,  I could go down the whole list of doctors in Dallas who  said
that  he had a large gaping hole in the right rear portion of his  head.
Even  Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped up on the back  of
the  car  in a vain effort to save his life; in  his  Warren  Commission
testimony  he says, quite bluntly, quite to the point: "The  right  rear
portion  of his head was missing." End-quote. Okay? How much clearer  do
you  want to be? And every doctor in Dallas backed him up. Doctor  Jones
says  that  there was a large defect in the back side of his  head.  Dr.
Perry  said:  "I  noted a large evulsive wound  in  the  right  parieto-
occipital  area."  I could go on and on and on. They all said  the  same
thing:  that  there was a gaping hole in the right rear portion  of  his
head. But today, we have an autopsy photograph that has come out of  the
Government  that purports to show the back of President Kennedy's  head,
and  there's  no large gaping hole there. All there is is a  small  hole
that  the  House Committee told us was an entrance wound. And  yet,  the
autopsy doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House Committee said:
"Well,  I  don't  know  what that was, but  that  wasn't  any  wound  of
entrance.  And I know that for sure."  Okay? So what's going on here?  I
mean, the confusion points the finger at what REALLY is going on, and at
who is generating all this. And it's the Federal Government!

GARY NULL:
Alright,  so  let's  take  a  look  here.  You're  suggesting  that  the
Government, or various members of different areas of the Government have
participated in a systematic cover-up.

JIM MARRS:
Absolutely!  For  instance, the Warren Commission tells us  --  and  the
people who defend the Warren Commission to this very day tell us -- that
one of the shots (it started off that it was the first shot. Now they're
backing  up  by saying: Well, maybe it was the second one or  the  third
one)  .... but one of the shots, they say, went through  Kennedy's  neck
and  did  not  hit anything. It went on  to  strike  Governor  Connally,
causing  all  of  his wounds -- which has become known  as  "the  single
bullet theory"; this idea that one bullet went through both men. This is
the foundation of the "single assassin theory".  Okay? If you don't have
one  bullet going through two men, then you've got more  bullets,  which
means  more shooters, which means a conspiracy involving more  than  one
gunman.  So  to keep from having to admit that, they came  up  with  the
"single bullet theory" which says that one bullet went through Kennedy's
neck and struck Connally.

Now,  the  problem is that the bullet did not go through his  neck.  The
Warren  Commission plainly states that it hit him in the middle  of  the
back  --  the  third thoracic vertebrae, between  the  shoulder  blades.
Doctor  Humes places it there in the Siebert-O'Neill FBI Report  of  the
autopsy.  His  jacket and his shirt, in the National  Archives,  show  a
bullet hole in the middle of the back. Well, if there's a bullet hole in
the middle of the back, and you try to track that to the throat wound --
which  is  what they do -- now you've got an  upward  trajectory,  which
destroys  the idea that this bullet somehow cursed downward  and  struck
Governor  Connally.  Plus, you've got Governor Connally's  wrist  X-ray,
which  shows  that there are still more pieces of bullet  in  his  wrist
today  than  are  missing off of the bullet that  the  Government  still
claims caused the wound. So it's very obvious that they're simply  lying
about what went on.

We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in  which
their  Chief  Counsel admits that since we have a picture of  where  the
bullet entered the back, that it's below the place where it came out the
front.  So how could it go and turn around, etc.? They knew it,  and  so
they  chose to lie to us and simply claim that the bullet  went  through
his neck. And the supporters of the Warren Commission are still  telling
us the same thing, although this is totally opposite to what the medical
evidence shows us.

So it's a huge thing. You have to look at the totality of this case. Any
one  particular  issue  can  be  picked  apart  or  explained  away   or
rationalized  as  coincidence or happenstance, but if you  look  at  the
total picture, you can begin to get an understanding of what really went
on.

GARY NULL:
Alright,  Jim  Marrs,  I want you to hold on,  because  we're  going  to
present some new information. By the way, Jim Marrs is an award- winning
reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he was a reporter at  the
time of the assassination for the Denton Record-Chronicle. He teaches at
the University of Texas at Arlington.

Now,  just today -- just less than an hour ago -- the  American  Medical
Association  gave it's official position on the  Kennedy  assassination,
and a Doctor George Lundberg, the editor of the Journal of the  American
Medical  Association and Editor-in-Chief of Scientific  Publications  of
JAMA, read their position paper, and I'll just quote something from  it.
Later  in the show we're going to come back to this, because we  have  a
part of the press conference recorded by WBAI. It says:

   "The recent Crenshaw book"

(and we had Dr. Crenshaw on the show)

   "is  a  sad fabrication based upon unsubstantiated  allegations.  The
   best  explanation for the motivations of myriad conspiracy  theorists
   are paranoia, the desire for personal recognition, public  visibility
   and profit."

Anyhow, it says that this is all nonsense. There was no conspiracy; that
the  Warren  Commission was right. And THAT was  the  press  conference.
We'll get more on the press conference, but I just want you to know that
finally JAMA (and I don't know why JAMA would be sticking it's nose into
something that it knows nothing about, to begin with) came out and  felt
the  need to hold a press conference to say that the  Warren  Commission
was  right.  Everyone  (they  say) in the  field  writing  books,  doing
broadcasts, or offering information to the public, must be doing it  for
profit, recognition or some other [personal] motive.

JIM MARRS:
I've  got  news for them. Talk to anybody who has known me  and  they'll
tell you that I've been making the same criticisms since the early `70s,
and I certainly never made any money. In fact, people ....

GARY NULL:
Jim,  let me ask you something. Have you ever been found guilty,  in  an
extended  trial, of restraint of trade, monopolistic practices, and,  if
so, was that conviction upheld all the way clear up to all the different
appeals courts, and now the conviction is final?

JIM MARRS:
Not me.

GARY NULL:
Well that has happened to the American Medical Association. So, when the
AMA has the audacity to come onto a press conference -- with the muddled
background  that  they  have  for having been  caught  engaging  in  the
restraint of trade and in monopolistic practices -- claiming that others
have ulterior motives, I think it's absolutely absurd.

JIM MARRS:
Anybody who knows anything knows that the AMA is a FIRM supporter of the
status quo, and that it has been highly political for years. And I would
ascribe  political  motives to almost anything that they do.  The  point
that I want to make here is -- if my understanding is correct -- if they
are simply quoting from the two autopsy doctors who worked on  President
Kennedy,  well then, this is just an affirmation [of that  autopsy].  Of
course, those doctors are going to say the same things they said in 1963
and 1964, and it's going to support the Warren Commission's  contention.
But  this is a diversion. This is a red herring. This is not the  issue.
The issue is that what the autopsy doctors saw was not the same as  what
the  doctors saw [at Parkland Hospital] in Dallas. And there is  a  very
DEEP  discrepancy  between the wounds as viewed in Dallas  ....  I  just
quoted you all these people who said that there was a large hole in  the
back  of his head. This was not seen at the autopsy -- or not  reported.
So  we've got some real discrepancies here, and this  particular  little
news conference and their pronouncements are simply skirting the issue.

GARY NULL:
Okay,  Jim, I want you to hold on because we're going to introduce  some
new evidence and a new individual to our conference here. He is Harrison
Edward  Livingstone,  the  author of HIGH TREASON  II.  Welcome  to  our
program, Mr. Livingstone.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Thanks for inviting me.

GARY NULL:
I would like to go straight to some of the most important issues, and if
you would, please give us the research that you have uncovered on these.
First,  I  would  like to have you review, from  your  perspective,  the
eyewitness descriptions of Kennedy's real wounds.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Well,  as  you  know, I've been able to interview  almost  every  living
medical  witness.  I did not talk to Doctor Clark, although he  gave  me
certain  answers through his secretary, twelve years ago. I have  talked
to  Doctor  Humes, but I can't say that anything was  productive  there,
even  after  as much as an hour of talk. But, other than that,  my  book
presents  the  most complete history of what these  doctors  are  saying
today,  and put in perspective of what they said and wrote in  1963.  No
other book or writer or researcher has achiveved this.

GARY NULL:
We're  not  here to promote your book, as such. We're here  for  you  to
please share your information with us. So if you could, please go  right
to  the  information. Would you talk about the evidence of  forgery  and
retouching of the autopsy photographs and X-rays?

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
[initial  words were drowned out by Gary Null's voice] .... doctors  and
the two autopsies. And the point being that they are trying to head  off
at  the pass the research that I have just published, and for  no  other
reason;  also  [they're  targeting]  Doctor  Crenshaw's  book  and   his
statements. They made a number of totally false statements at this press
conference. For instance, that Crenshaw (they quoted other doctors,  and
this  is  an example of how they cooked their article  by  the  American
Medical Association) .... that Crenshaw was not present at the autopsy -
- when if you go and read in Volume Six of the Warren Commission  books,
he is mentioned by almost every doctor as having been there. And he  was
certainly in a position to observe the wounds and to see what was  going
on. And it doesn't take anybody more than an idiot to know that a bullet
is  either an entry hole through the skin of the neck, or it's an  exit,
because,  if  it's  coming out, it's going to make  quite  a  tear.  And
anybody,  basically, would see the difference. I was pretty stunned,  as
you  probably  know, because I was at this press conference  today.  You
ask: Why is JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] doing
this at this time, and I'm just telling you there is only one reason why
they're  doing  it. It's because the whole cover-up perpetrated  by  the
Government  in this case is directly threatened by the research  that  I
have  done  and  by my making it possible for  Crenshaw  and  the  other
doctors to come forward.

GARY NULL:
Alright.  Would  you give us some link between Richard Nixon's  men  and
John   Kennedy's  killers  that  ties  the  assassination  directly   to
Watergate?  And could you please give us the facts?

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Before  I  get  to that, you had asked me a  question  on  this  medical
evidence.  Do you recall?

GARY NULL:
Yes.  I  asked  you for the evidence of forgery and  retouching  in  the
autopsy photographs and X-rays.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
This  is my special area of research. I discovered that the X-rays  were
fake  in that they show the entire face missing on the right  side.  And
again,  this  is  what JAMA tried to head off at  the  press  conference
today. They tried to ridicule criticism of the medical evidence  without
facing  these facts. And I asked them at the press conference:   "Didn't
you  notice  that the face is missing -- that the  President's  face  is
missing  in the X-rays, but it's NOT missing in the photographs?"   And,
of  course, at that point, the press conference became  tumultuous,  and
the whole thing began to be overturned. The photographs, of course, show
extensive retouching and evidence of forgery. And this was directly  how
the  Chief Justice of the United States was tricked -- with  this  faked
evidence.  The  doctors, most recently (quite a few that  JAMA  did  not
interview,  and they don't dare interview, and if they did,  like  other
researchers, they're not going to report it) .... because those  doctors
insist,  to this day, that that throat wound WAS an entry hole. And  the
many  people who were at the autopsy .... and Doctor Fink, the  forensic
pathologist who was at the autopsy, who was not interviewed by JAMA, and
whom  they  claimed declined, and I've talked to him. But  he  testified
that the hole in the back was an entry hole that did not penetrate  into
the  chest.  So what JAMA did -- and as Jim Marrs just said:  They're  a
political  action committee that doesn't dare let this evidence link  up
because  ....  they've kept it compartmentalized. I asked  them:   "What
about  Doctor  Humes's  stating at the end of  his  testimony  to  Arlen
Specter  that the bullet that hit John Connally could not possibly  have
been  the  same  bullet that went through John Kennedy  because  of  the
fragments that were found in Connally?" They said:  "We did not  discuss
John Connally in this article. It's not relevant."  So that's an example
of compartmentalizing the evidence by a political action committee which
has sought to control the medical community in this country.

GARY NULL:
Okay.   Let's  try  to go back to the photographs. And  please,  if  you
would, try to keep .... we have limited time and we want the opportunity
for you to give us as much information as you can. Let's go specifically
to  the  fraud  that you are asserting, and on  the  retouching  of  the
photographs that no one else in the media has picked up on.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Right.  This is the key to the case, right now. The Chief Justice,  Earl
Warren  (and  he  mentions  in his memoirs that  he  was  shown  autopsy
photographs) [said] that he was tricked by phony photographs and  X-rays
which  apparently  show a shot that came from behind.  They  claim  that
there  is  an  entry  hole in the area  of  the  cowlick,  although  the
autopsists, Doctors Humes and Boswell, told the committee of doctors  at
the House of Representatives that they denied ....  He said: I defy  you
to see this hole here where you say it is; that this is not a hole. It's
something  else. And it was four inches -- as the Clark Panel  found  in
1968  -- from where that entry hole was placed in the autopsy report  by
Doctor  Humes  and Doctor Boswell. It was four inches  above  it.  Then,
showing  the face missing in the X-rays and not showing Earl Warren  the
photographs that showed the President's face intact made him think  that
his  face was blown away.  And that's what we see in the Zapruder  film.
And I believe that that's animated.

GARY NULL:
Okay,  let's  go  to  some specific references. I'm  looking  now  at  a
photograph of John Kennedy. It's called "the stare of death" photograph.
And  I'd  like for you to talk about the reference black  triangle  that
appears on the right upper forehead of Kennedy in this photograph.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Yes, if you have a clear print of that in the negative, in the  negative
there is no light whatsoever that comes through that triangle. It's much
clearer  in  a  clear print. In my book, we were able  to  do  the  best
possible  reproductions, but, of course, they're screened and  it's  not
that  clear.  But  in a comparable right profile  photograph,  which  we
publish  there, you can see what has been covered up. And  they're  from
two  DIFFERENT  sets  of  photographs. One,  with  the  reference  black
triangle  is known as "the Fox set of photographs" which came  into  the
possession  of Mark Crouch, who was a friend of the Secret Service  man,
James  K. Fox, who took the rolls of film from Bethesda  Naval  Hospital
over  to  be developed in the Navy labs. The other set  of  photographs,
which  were  in the possession of Robert Groden, show that  there  is  a
major laceration extending into the forehead of the President. This  was
NOT  seen  in Dallas, but two of the autopsy doctors did  describe  this
laceration  to me. They brought it up. I did not bring it up.  And  they
told  me  about the laceration going a half an inch  into  the  forehead
above the right eye. That's where that reference black triangle is. What
the reasons were for covering it up in some of those photographs are not
clear  to  me.  I can't answer that question. All I know  is  that  they
conflict with each other -- these two different pictures, as do many  of
the photographs conflict with each other.

GARY NULL:
Also, it's very clear that the whole right side of the head is blackened
out, and only the ear is visible. That is CLEARLY retouching.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
That's  it. And the whole back of the head, extending around  behind  to
the right ear was missing. And a major part of my research was to try to
resolve the puzzles of the medical evidence. Exactly what did the wounds
look  like?  I was able to determine -- by having the  doctors  and  the
witnesses  at  the  autopsy and in Dallas draw  on  mannequin  heads  --
exactly  where the bone defect was and how much scalp was  missing.  And
they  are  identical. The wound was not altered, but there was  a  large
hole  that went all the way around to the side of the head. The  autopsy
report  is accurate in that respect, but the problem was that there  was
sort of a flap of scalp that was badly macerated and it did have an egg-
shaped-sized hole through it. But it could not possibly cover up all  of
the  missing  bone that was underneath there. And this caused a  lot  of
confusion  among  engineers and accountants and other people  with  that
mindset  who do this research, because they can't semantically  separate
out  the  issues,  for instance, between alteration  and  tampering,  or
between laceration and incision. A lot of the confusion in the case  (in
the  medical evidence) is semantic, so I was able to determine that  the
body  was  not altered. It may have been tampered with,  but  even  that
doesn't appear to have been necessary when all they really had to do was
to fake the photographs and flash them at Earl Warren who put them aside
immediately because of their gore.

GARY NULL:
Alright,  now there are two other very VERY important issues  here.  And
they are that the photographs of John Kennedy's body, where he is on his
face, lying on his stomach here, it shows ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Lying on his back. There's no picture of him lying on his stomach.

GARY NULL:
Oh,  okay. Yeah, it's been turned around there. I have a picture of  his
back, and the first bullet hole ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
He's lifted up from the table -- yes.

GARY NULL:
Okay.  The first bullet hole is about four inches, it looks like,  below
the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
Well the larger hole is not the hole. It's about two inches below  that.
You'll  see a small red thing, closer to the roller, and that,  the  men
all state, was a hole. And they also indicate that that deep  depression
down toward the bottom of the roller is a bullet hole.

GARY NULL:
Yeah,  well there are two bullet holes in his back. How can a  man  have
two bullet holes in his back, and then ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
I  don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there  were  gunmen
all  around that car. In Senator Dodd's report -- that was  appended  to
the House Committee report when he was in the House of Representatives -
-  stated that there were at least three gunmen firing, and two of  them
had  to  have been from behind, because of the closeness of  the  shots.
There ARE six shots on that Dallas [motorcycle] police tape recording.

GARY NULL:
Yeah, but you see, the Warren Commission does not state that.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
No!  They say that three shots were fired and two struck the President.

GARY NULL:
Also,  you have the entire back of the head shown very clearly, and  you
do not see the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:
No.  Part  of that is not clear at all. You see the area that's  out  of
focus there. The background is in focus and the foreground -- where  the
cowlick  [is] closest to the lens of the camera -- is in focus. But  the
area  all along the hairline from behind the ear down to the  center  of
the  neck (in the hair) is out of focus. And that's where  they  smudged
all that over when they made their composite photograph.

GARY NULL:
Alright,  what I'd like to do is this. Let's just summarize here  for  a
moment.  What  we have are some CLEARLY retouched photographs.  We  have
more bullet holes in the President's body than the Warren Commission, or
any of the so-called "official" investigations, have recognized. How  in
the  world does a man end up with this many proveable bullet holes,  and
yet,  still  have one man doing all the shooting? Some of  these  bullet
holes  are clearly exit wounds. Some are entrance wounds. And  yet,  the
Warren  Commission has, for whatever reason, only presented  that  these
were  rear entrance wounds. The autopsy photographs HAVE  been  altered.
The X-rays HAVE been altered. It is not possible to end up with an X-ray
.... Let's say if you took a normal anterior/posterior skull X-ray,  and
then you took the Kennedy anterior/posterior skull X-ray -- the  Kennedy
lateral skull X-ray -- there's an amount of facial bone that's  missing.
If this were presented in any regular forensic trial today, it would  be
LAUGHABLE. The evidence would be thrown out as inadmissible and faulty.

We're  going to take a brief break. I'd like both Jim Marrs  [author  of
CROSSFIRE]  and  also,  our guest on the phone right  now  --  who  just
returned  from the press conference -- Harrison Edward Livingstone,  who
needless  to say, was part of the reason that the AMA called this  hasty
press  conference (and the press conference itself you'll hear a  little
later  on. We tape recorded some of it) .... we're going to get to  some
information  that  I  think  the people in  this  audience  have  always
wondered about. Are you aware that not ONCE were we ever given the  real
reason as to why the Watergate Break-In occurred?  What was in the  safe
they  were looking for?  Why did CIA people go into that safe?  Why  did
Nixon authorize it?  That brought down the whole Nixon Administration --
about  sixty-seven of his top cronies.  Why? We were never  asked  that!
The media never probed it further than what was given to them.

Well,  you're going to hear something when we come back, about the  link
between  Richard  Nixon's men and John Kennedy's killers that  ties  the
assassination directly to Watergate.

    [JD: There was an incident which remains vivid in my memory, and  it
     has never been explored by anyone, though it might provide a fuller
     picture of the possible link between the Watergate Break-In and the
     assassination of President Kennedy.

     Those  of  you  who  are  old  enough  will  recall  the   numerous
     Presidential press conferences of Richard Nixon during which he was
     interrogatively flayed and driven to the brink of impeachment by  a
     concerted  onslaught  from the press corps, members of  which  have
     since been alleged to be journalistic prostitutes for the CIA (e.g.
     Walter Cronkite and, I think, Dan Rather, notorious among many). In
     one  of those press conferences (I think it may have been the  "I'm
     not  a  crook!"  press  conference) a  reporter  asked  Nixon  [I'm
     paraphrasing]:   You   said  something  about  the   John   Kennedy
     assassination as an example or an analogy .... And then, Nixon  cut
     him off and exclaimed, with distress: "No, no, no! I didn't mean to
     imply  that  I know any more about that assassination  than  anyone
     else  does." Nixon's tenseness at this moment was  striking.  Since
     then,  I have been suspicious that Nixon might have  knowledge,  if
     not some involvement in the assassination.

     What  ought  to be examined is a tape of that press  conference  so
     that  perhaps a scientific voice analysis can be done to  indicate,
     albeit  not  to  prove,  that Nixon was lying  about  his  lack  of
     knowledge of any unreported evidence surrounding the  assassination
     of John Kennedy.

     If  enough people wish to collaborate on such a project, we may  be
     able  to  finance the purchase of the tape and the  voice  analysis
     with small cost to everyone involved. Please send me e-mail if  you
     are interested.

         John DiNardo
         [e-mail]   or  jad@att!ckuxb

GARY NULL:
We're  also  going  to  talk about proof  of  fraud  and  disinformation
campaigns WITHIN the assassination research community, and how a  United
States Senator and two former Presidents personally covered up facts  in
the  case.  And we're also going to talk about proof that  bullets  WERE
removed from the President's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital before  the
autopsy began. That's just some of what we're going to talk about today.
New  information;  very powerful information. And, contrary to  what  my
first guest suggested (and I respect that each guest can have their  own
point of view, and everyone has the right to have a point of view,  even
if it differs with other people on the show) he suggested that there was
no hard data. This is as good data as can be produced.

Now  I'm going to ask our guest, Jim Marrs, you're going to  have  about
ten minutes, and Harrison Edward Livingstone, you're going to have about
ten  minutes.  You  can  take a break, because  you're  talking  on  the
commercial-free  Pacifica  Radio station in New York, WBAI, 99.5  FM,  a
50,000 watt station. I've been here for fifteen years. We work for  free
--  those of us on the air, and we ask, three times a year, for  pledges
from the station's listners to help support our efforts.

    [JD:  My apologies for missing the subsequent discourse. I'm  trying
     to obtain a tape of it. If and when I do, I'll promptly  transcribe
     it  for  you. However, I have taped numerous hours  of  information
     covering  the succeeding episodes in the series. So  the  following
     transcript resumes the discussion with the next day's broadcast  in
     the series.]

GARY NULL:
Alright, David, if you could, please, would you go through this evidence
in  some  detail?   You're making a lot of statements and  a  a  lot  of
allegations.  We'd like you now to substantiate the differences  between
the official version.

DAVID LIFTON:
Okay. With regard to the casket, for example, the witness who opened the
casket  ....  the persons who saw the casket come in the  back  door  of
Bethesda Naval Hospital, and who actually unloaded it are Dennis  David,
the  chief-of-the-day  at Bethesda Naval Hospital and a  man  named  Don
Rabbatisch [sp] who was actually one of the casket toters, so to speak -
- who took it out of the black hearse in which it arrived.

The  account of Dennis David is that he is at the back of the  hospital.
He  is in charge of part of the security function. He is told  that  the
President's  body  is  going to arrive there. They go  down.  The  black
hearse pulls in. He assembles some of his men. Don Rabbatisch is one  of
them.  They bring the casket inside. A black hearse pulls up. There's  a
group of plainclothesmen and two men in O.R. smocks. They get out of the
ambulance.  The  shipping  casket (and that's what it  was:  a  shipping
casket) is removed from the black hearse. It is brought onto the loading
dock  and  it is brought to the door of the morgue. In the door  of  the
morgue  is Paul O'Connor. He's the medical technician listed in the  FBI
reports, and who is also listed in the official Navy records, and in the
House Select Committee records. He opens the casket which is a  shipping
casket, according to O'Connor. Inside the shipping casket is a body bag.
He unzips the body bag, puts the President's body, along with others  in
the  morgue,  on the table. He said that when the wrapping  was  removed
from  the head area, there was a gasp in the room, and he said:  "and  I
looked  down and said, `My God, there's no brain!'"  And you  could  see
this. It was apparent. The FBI, at that time, writes notes. They write a
report  that weekend. In their report, which was not published with  the
Warren Commission documents, but is at the National Archives, they write
that  when  the  body  was  removed from the  casket  in  which  it  was
transported, it was (quote) "apparent that there had been surgery to the
head  area;  namely in the top of the skull."  And that's  the  official
record. That's the evidence.

Now, the Warren Commission did not know about most of this evidence that
I  am  talking about here. They did not perform this kind  of  analysis.
They  did not establish what, in law, is called a "chain of  possession"
on  the  body. So the Navy commander who performed  the  autopsy  simply
comes  before the Commission, raises his right hand and testifies as  to
the  condition  of the body. And they accept that autopsy  report  which
states  that  President  Kennedy was shot twice from  behind,  based  on
wounds you see on the body which were NOT on the body in Dallas, if  you
compare  Dallas versus Bethesda -- Dallas being where the President  was
shot,  Bethesda being where the autopsy was performed six  hours  later.
Based on the Bethesda wound pattern, President Kennedy IS, or appears to
be, in fact, shot twice from behind. Based on the Dallas wound  pattern,
he was NOT.

Now  ordinarily,  you would trust the autopsy over the accounts  of  the
doctors  at  Dallas, because the autopsy is better  evidence.  It's,  in
fact, the "best evidence". It's based on the body of the President.  But
the  irony is that, in this case, there is a subterfuge, and,  in  fact,
the body was altered. That's what my book was all about: persuading  the
reader  that there is evidence that the body was altered, and that  this
is  the reason why the evidence looks the way it does. I might just  add
that  if  you start with this evidence in 1992, the same  evidence  that
they  had  in 1963, unless this autopsy is overturned, you're  going  to
come  to  the  same conclusion: that Oswald  shot  the  President.  This
autopsy is the legal foundation for that whole house of cards. It cannot
collapse unless the autopsy is overturned in a definitive fashion.

GARY NULL:
What would have been the sequence of events to have allowed the brain to
have  been  removed, since there is no evidence that it was  removed  in
Dallas  during  the procedures that were performed on the body  at  that
time?

DAVID LIFTON:
If  I  understand  you correctly, you're asking me  when  was  the  body
stolen. Is that what you're saying?

GARY NULL:
Yes. When was it stolen, and why would they have removed the brain,  and
where did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:
The only time that the body could have been taken out of the casket (and
this  is  covered in the conclusion of my book), and the  only  time  (I
don't want to say that the casket is unguarded because there are  always
Secret  Service  agents  around, and you cannot  have  this  go  forward
without the connivance of some Secret Service agents), but the only time
that the Kennedys aren't all over that casket is when they come back  to
Air  Force  One  after the shooting. That is,  after  the  President  is
pronounced  dead at Parkland Hospital, a coffin is obtained --  a  large
viewing casket which everybody sees on national TV. They go out to  Love
Field  with  the  President's body in the casket.  They  go  aboard  the
aircraft and they learn that there is going to be a delay.  "Why,"  they
ask.  "Why  can't they take-off immediately  for  Washington?"   "Well,"
they're told, "Lyndon Johnson is aboard this aircraft. He didn't go back
to  Washington on the other plane. He's on this plane." And  he  appears
and says: "I spoke to Bobby Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy said, `Delay  the
flight.  I must be sworn in first in the state of Texas.'"  This is  all
denied  that  night  by  Bobby  Kennedy  who  tells  his   sister-in-law
Jacqueline Kennedy that he said no such thing to Lyndon Johnson; that he
(Johnson) called Bobby Kennedy, who was Attorney-General in  Washington,
and  said:  I'm being told that I should be sworn in. Do  you  have  any
objections; that it wasn't the other way around.

Anyway,  the  result of this is that the flight is delayed  by  about  a
half-hour,  and  basically, the Kennedys (Mrs. Kennedy and  the  Kennedy
aides)  are  told  or requested to come to the front  of  the  plane  to
witness  the  swearing  in. It is in connection with  this  activity  of
"delay  the  flight  and  let's go to the front of  the  plane  for  the
swearing in" .... that's the only time that the Kennedy party is not all
over  that  casket. That's the time, I believe, (and it's a  process  of
elimination,  I will concede. I don't have a direct  witness;  otherwise
I'd  have  solved the Kennedy assassination) .... but it's  during  that
period that the body must have been taken out of the casket and put into
some  other casket and brought somewhere. I personally believe,  at  the
time I wrote BEST EVIDENCE, that the body was flown to Washington, D.C.,
and  that  the alterations occurred on the East Coast  after  the  plane
landed  at  Andrews  Air  Force Base at six o'clock.  And  I  cited,  as
evidence,  helicopter activity on the starboard side; that is, the  side
facing away from public view -- and from radio transmissions  indicating
that  they were going to go with the body to Walter Reed  Army  Hospital
where  (quote)  "an autopsy was to be conducted under guard."   And  all
that's on the radio. And I spelled it out in my book.

Now,  it's  an  unsolved mystery as to where this body  was  taken.  But
wherever  it happened, that's where the brain would be removed  and  the
wounds  altered.  It  would  be done very  quickly.  It  was  done  VERY
sloppily,  I might add. And that's why, when the body arrived without  a
brain, it was immediately noted that there had been surgery to the  head
area.  That's what the FBI wrote down. We're not dealing with some  kind
of  perfect fraud here. We're dealing with a very imperfect  crime  with
footprints  all  over  the place; footprints which are  ignored  by  the
Warren  Commission because they saw the crime -- or you might  say  they
saw these events through very Establishment eyes. They never  questioned
any of this stuff that's brought up in my book.

GARY NULL:
When did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:
A  brain is infused, in the autopsy room, by another  technician:  James
Jenkins.  Now let me explain this. It's kind of interesting. There  were
three technicians in the room: a guy named Ranicki, a fellow named  Paul
O'Connor and a fellow named Jenkins. Paul O'Connor gives me the  account
(and  it's  a thing that he will never forget. It just came out  of  his
mouth  when  I  interviewed him in 1979), that  the  cranium  is  empty.
There's no brain, etc. And on the chart where the body organ weights are
listed  (a chart which is perfectly authentic. It has little pink  spots
on  it.  That's Kennedy's blood. It's in the  National  Archives  today)
there  is no weight given for the brain, but there is a weight for  many
of the other body organs.

That night, at some point -- and I don't know when -- a brain is brought
into the room. That brain is given to James Jenkins, another technician.
James  infuses that brain with formaldehyde. And that brain becomes  the
evidence brain. It is weighed ten days later, or something. It's  weight
is recorded in a supplementary brain report. When I confronted O'Connor,
on  camera,  with the fact that there is this brain, he  said:  "Well  I
don't  know where they got it from. It certainly couldn't have been  the
President's!" In other words, it did not arrive in the body. Now, that's
the  way an autopsy is supposed to happen. The body is supposed to  have
the body parts inside it. You know, we're not dealing with United Parcel
Service  where you send something and say: "See attached." The brain  is
supposed  to  come in the cranium.  Now, a brain is  definitely  brought
into  the room. I do not know how it got into the room. I can just  tell
you that James Jenkins infused a brain that night, whereas Paul O'Connor
said  that the cranium was empty. And by the way, O'Connor's account  is
corroborated by the X-ray technician who said that the hole was so large
and  the thing was so empty that he could have put his hands inside  the
hole.

GARY NULL:
Alright.   We're going to be speaking with Paul O'Connor in just  a  few
moments.  We  have  him  on  the  show,  as  well,  because  we   wanted
indidividuals who could corroborate your information.

But  right now, we're going to ask you to remain on hold. We're  in  the
midst of a WBAI fund-raising [period] ....

 ....  My show is on the air five days a week bringing programs  to  you
that  will give you insights. Like right now we're doing a whole  series
on  Government agendas and hidden agendas, and the  conspiracies.  We're
targetting,  right now, the [John] Kennedy Assassination,  just  because
that  assassination is something that everyone would agree had  a  major
national  impact.  The  trouble is, what we were told  is  the  OFFICIAL
position  doesn't  blend  with what  other  researchers  and  first-hand
observers  are  suggesting were the actual cases. And then, we  have  to
ask:  Why would someone cover-up this information?  Why?  Why would  the
media not report it?  Why would the Government not investigate it?   Why
would the Warren Commission not explore it?  So we're looking at that.

Right  now,  on our program (and I want to thank our  guests  for  being
patient  and  for  standing  by) is David Lifton,  the  author  of  BEST
EVIDENCE.  He is suggesting that there were two caskets, one  body;  and
that  the body arrived without a brain; and that the brain that we  were
told  was  President  Kennedy's brain may  have,  indeed,  been  someone
else's; that there was a gaping hole large enough to put a fist  through
when  it  arrived  in Washington; and that  therefore,  there  had  been
alterations.

Now,  let  us see what other corroboration we could have  for  this.  We
have,  on  the  conference phone right now, Dr.  Charles  Crenshaw.  Dr.
Crenshaw,  who graduated from the Parkland Memorial Hospital in  Dallas,
Texas, who specializes in general surgery, is presently the chairman and
director of the Department of Surgery at Saint Peters-Smith Hospital, in
the  Fort  Worth  area. He is a professor of  clinical  surgery  at  the
University  of  Texas, Southwestern Health Center's  Science  Center  in
Dallas. Welcome to our program, Dr. Crenshaw.

DR. CRENSHAW:
Thank you.

GARY NULL:
By the way, Dr. Crenshaw is also the author of a very important work  on
the Kennedy Assassination called, JFK: THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE,  which
right  now,  I believe, is number one on the New York  Times  bestseller
list. Isn't it?

DR. CRENSHAW:
Yes, it is.

GARY NULL:
And,  by the way, THREE other books on the top-ten bestseller  list  are
also  about this assassination, so CLEARLY there is interest. Would  you
be  good  enough  to  explain to us  the  inconsistencies  between  your
EYEWITNESS  account  and  the  official  report  upheld  by  the  Warren
Commission?

DR. CRENSHAW:
That  day, on November the 22nd, 1963, all of the surgeons  at  Parkland
believed  that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot at  least
once from the front. We saw two wounds there. Both of them were from the
front. The head wound was tangential in nature, coming in over the right
side, above his ear, and leaving a large exit area, a vulsed[?] area  in
the right-rear part of the head. There was loss of part of the parietal,
temporal  and  most  of  the  occipital  lobe  of  the  right   cerebral
hemisphere, with exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half
to  two-  and-three-fourths  inches in diameter. It  was  more  or  less
circular.  And in the photos from the National Archives -- which are  so
damaging -- this wound had completely vanished. There was no wound  seen
in  the  exhibits that are marked "B" and "E" in the book.  This  wound,
that  ALL of the physicians at Parkland described, was completely  gone.
The  second  wound was in the anterior part of the neck.  It  was  about
three to six millimeters in size and with an arc the size of your little
finger.  It  was clearly demarcated as round and  relatively  clean-cut.
Then the tracheal tube that had been put down was ineffective. And  then
Dr.  Perry  performed  a tracheostomy through the  entrance  wound.  The
incision was sharp with smooth edges, and about an inch to and inch-and-
a-half long. It was no longer than the flange on the tracheostomy  tube,
which was one-and-three-fourths inches. Not only that, after the  nurses
had  removed this tracheostomy tube before we placed him in the  coffin,
it  was brought back again. The edges were still smooth and very  sharp.
And in the autopsy photographs that I first saw in looking for the  head
wound,  this wound was widely gaping, it was irregular, and it  was  now
about two-point-five to three inches long. So there was CLEARLY a change
between these wounds, that I saw at Parkland, and the wounds that we saw
on the autopsy pictures that were given from the National Archives.

GARY NULL:
Why  didn't  you or others at the scene later complain or even  make  an
issue or an affidavit showing that this was an alteration?

DR. CRENSHAW:
We  never saw the photos. The first time I saw these was in early  1991.
The  Parkland  physicians were never given this opportunity.  They  were
only  told about the additional wounds (which I doubt whether there  was
another wound in the back of the head, because I looked there) and  were
never  told  or shown any other evidence. We were told  only  about  the
autopsy.  And  we, like most people, felt that they would have  had  the
best  forensic minds in our country to examine our  President.  However,
obviously,  [from] what has been discussed and what we now  know,  [that
assumption] was wrong. And so, we had no other knowledge other than  the
description by the Secret Service.

GARY NULL:
So if you had the description by the Secret Service, by an extension  of
this logic, the Secret Service or someone would have had to  participate
in  this cover-up, or this obstruction of information. Would that  be  a
reasonable assumption?

DR. CRENSHAW:
I think that's a very reasonable assumption.

JONES HARRIS:
So, my point here is this: that the decision not to look very firmly  at
Organized  Crime  starts almost from the beginning. It starts  with  the
Dallas  Police. It starts with the Bureau [the FBI]. It starts with  the
Warren  Commission. It continues to Garrison, and I must say  that  even
though  the Blakey Committee finally did come through and say: "Yes,  it
looks as though there might have been involvement", considering all  the
time  that  they spent, I found that their information was  awful  awful
thin.

GARY NULL:
Alright.  Let's explore that in some depth now, and let's go over to Mr.
Fonzi.  Please hold on, Mr. Harris.  Mr. Fonzi, thank you very much  for
being with us. Let's explore a few things. Now you were an  investigator
with  the  House Select Committee on Assassinations. Did you  find  that
there was any attempt by either the FBI or the CIA or other leading  law
enforcement  agencies or the attorney-general's office,  after  [Robert]
Kennedy, to downplay or to disengage the interest of an investigation of
Organized Crime in this?

GAETON FONZI:
Well that was not actually one of my areas of investigation. There  was,
on  the  part  of all the agencies, I believe, not  a  total  spirit  of
cooperation. And, of course, when it came to the CIA, that was even more
so.

Let  me go back to something that John Davis said earlier on, as far  as
there  being  no  concrete evidence of CIA  involvement.  There  was  no
concrete  evidence  of  anyone's  involvement.  There  was  no  concrete
evidence  of  Organized  Crime's  involvement.  There  was  no  concrete
evidence   of   anti-Castro  Cuban  involvement  or   pro-Castro   Cuban
involvement. There was no concrete evidence of any type of  involvement.
There  was,  I  believe, no concrete evidence  of  Lee  Harvey  Oswald's
involvement in the assassination.

GARY NULL:
Are you suggesting that Kennedy shot himself?

GAETON FONZI:
What I'm suggesting is that after all these years, there has not been an
adequate  investigation. There was not an adequate investigation on  the
part  of the Warren Commission, and there wasn't one on the part of  the
House Select Committee on Assassinations.

GARY NULL:
But why?  There had to have been a reason.

GAETON FONZI:
Well, certainly from my own experience with the House Select  Committee,
I  know the reason was strictly political. When Bob Blakey,  the  second
chief counsel after the original chief counsel Richard Sprague was fired
for wanting to conduct a murder investigation, a unique approach to  the
Kennedy Assassination, the new chief cousel Bob Blakey came in and  told
his staff this at the first meeting:  "We have two priorities. Our first
priority is to get a report done in time. Our second priority is to  get
a  report  done  within our financial  restrictions."   And  with  those
priorities we set out to do exactly that, limiting, of course, many many
areas of investigation.

Let  me just go on for a minute in terms of some of the  specifics  that
both  John  Davis  and Jones Harris were talking  about.  I  agree  that
Organized  Crime  probably had a part in the  assassination  because  of
Ruby's links to Organized Crime. But I think, in trying to determine any
kind  of strategic planning here, you've got to account for  Oswald  and
Oswald's movements. You've got to account for Oswald's control. And when
Senator Richard Schweiker, who headed the Senate Select Subcommittee  on
the [John] Kennedy Assassination under the [Senator Frank] Church Select
Committee on Intelligence ..... when he first got into investigating the
Kennedy Assassination, his immediate conclusion, after digging into  it,
was  that  "Oswald  had",  as Schweiker put  it,  "the  fingerprints  of
Intelligence  all  over his activities."  So I think  that,  unless  you
crank   in  the  control  of  Oswald,  any  theory  about  the   Kennedy
Assassination just isn't complete.

GARY NULL:
Alright.  Can you take us into an understanding of Alpha 66 and  Antonio
Visiana?

GAETON FONZI:
Yes,  because  that  goes  into  .... when  you  talk  about  means  and
motivation,  I think you can find the means and motivation, not only  on
the  part of Organized Crime, but on the part of the anti-Castro  Cubans
or on the part of the intelligence agencies, and in almost any direction
you look. But what I feel is the strongest is the overall picture of the
intelligence agencies' connections to the anti-Castro Cubans, and  their
motivation. And that goes back to the period following the Bay of  Pigs.
Kennedy  was  given a lot of blame for the failure of the  Bay  of  Pigs
[Invasion],  but  it wasn't his fault. The Bay of Pigs  was  planned  --
including the air strikes -- by the [Central Intelligence] Agency before
Kennedy  became  president.  And  he was not even  told  about  the  air
strikes.  Subsequently,  as a result of that failure, Kennedy  was  very
angry,  both at Castro and at the Intelligence Agency. And he  sent  his
brother  Bobby  to actually begin taking over the Agency, and set  up  a
secret war against Castro that was based out of this Florida area  here.
And  over the course of the years this became the largest CIA  operation
outside  of Langley [Virginia, CIA Headquarters]. It was called the  Jam
Wave  Station and it conducted a very very effective  operation  against
Castro  almost  on a daily and nightly basis. These training  camps,  or
these guerilla camps, were set up by the Agency. They were controlled by
Agency  personnel using anti-Castro Cubans as the operatives. And  their
spirit and motivation became blended with the anti-Castro Cubans' goals.

Come the Cuban Missile Crisis when Kennedy realized that, as a result of
this  very  effective war against Castro, Castro permitted  the  Russian
missiles  to be brought into Cuba. Kennedy realized that he had  brought
the  world to the brink of a nuclear disaster. So he  made  arrangements
with [Soviet Premier] Kruschev to stop the secret war and to close  down
these guerilla bases in return for the withdrawal of the missiles.

When  he did that, the guerilla bases continued operating against --  in
defiance -- of the President's orders. As a result of that, Kennedy  was
forced  to  use other agencies -- the Navy, the Coast  Guard  and  other
military  agencies -- to close down these camps. And in the process,  he
arrested  some of these anti-Castro Cubans whom the Government had  been
supporting. This was reason enough for the anti-Castro Cubans and  their
Intelligence  [Agency] partners to consider Kennedy a traitor. And as  a
matter  of  fact,  during  the  height  of  delicate  negotiations  with
Kruschev, it was Alpha 66, one of the most militant anti-Castro  groups,
that  tried  to  sink  Russian ships in  Havana  Harbor,  again  defying
Kennedy's orders.

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:
So I went back, I tapped Dr. Shires[?] on his shoulder and he looked  at
me  because  everything was bedlam there. And I said:  "I've  just  been
talking  to the President of the United States, and that man over  there
is  to take a deathbed confession." And we both just kind of looked  and
knew  that, had Oswald survived, he wouldn't have been able to talk  for
two or three days anyway.

Consequently,  because  of the ravages of  hemorrhagic  shock,  Oswald's
heart  started failing and ultimately fibrillating. We tried all of  the
resuscitative  measures  -- chemical injections and  starting  with  the
shocks  -- but to no avail. So I then went over and tapped this  guy  on
the  shoulder and said: "There'll be no deathbed confession today."   So
Oliver  Hardy melted away again. I don't know who he was. I  don't  know
how  he  got there. The only interesting part is that I  know  that  the
President of the United States knew that he was in the room.

GARY NULL:
Give  us  again the astonishing differences between the  Dallas  medical
team's  account  of  the JFK wounds and the  findings  of  the  official
Bethesda autopsy team.

DR. CRENSHAW:
The  most striking, of course, is the head wound which is right  at  the
back  of the head at this occipit. It was in the right-rear portion,  in
the occipital area. It was about the size of a baseball. In the official
pictures  of  the autopsy, this wound had vanished.  It  was  completely
gone.  And  then  the neck wound which had  the  tracheostomy  performed
there,  which was an inch to an inch-and-a-half -- smooth, sharp  edges,
EVEN  when  the  tracheostomy  tube was removed.  This  is  now  gaping,
irregular and was three inches in length [in the Bethesda autopsy].

GARY NULL:
The  Parkland  Hospital's  nervousness  about  residents  treating   the
President,  which resulted in the Warren Commission's failure to  obtain
crucial statements from the attending medical staff .... Would you  give
us some background on this please?

DR. CRENSHAW:
Well, basically, there were thirty visits -- twenty-four of them by  the
Secret  Service and six by the FBI -- in which they talked to  different
physicians and nurses there. And it's interesting that not ONE of  these
conversations was given to the Warren Commission.

GARY NULL:
Not one of thirty?

DR.CRENSHAW:
Not one!

GARY NULL:
What does that tell you?  What does that imply?

DR. CRENSHAW:
It would imply that they didn't want to hear any contradictory remarks.

GARY NULL:
Alright.  What is your feeling about Robert Kennedy's involvement in any
possible cover-up?

DR. CRENSHAW:
I've  always  felt that maybe he wanted to become president so  that  he
could reopen this investigation. Three days before HIS assassination, in
a small community college, he announced to everyone that only the  power
of the Presidency could unravel the mystery of his brother's death.  And
he  was,  of course, assassinated then. But immediately,  Mrs.  Lincoln,
John Fitzgerald Kennedy's secretary, called Senator Ted Kennedy and told
him of artifacts that the Kennedy Family had in their possession. And he
told  her  not  to  worry; that everything was taken  care  of.  So  the
implication  has been that the attorney-general or Senator  Kennedy,  at
that time, did have important information that he had sequestered there,
so that, if it were at all possible, he could reopen this investigation.

GARY NULL:
And  lastly,  Jacqueline  Kennedy's  immediate  reactions  and  behavior
following the shooting?

DR. CRENSHAW:
I thought Mrs. Kennedy was very regal. She was standing there initially.
We  asked  her to sit outside the room. And then, of course,  after  his
death  we did not officially pronounce him dead because of  her  request
for a priest and the last rites. The priest arrived, and she walked into
the  room after him. We had pulled the sheet up. It was a little  short.
She stopped at the foot and kissed his great toe, and then went  forward
and  stood  there holding his right hand, listening to the  last  rites.
Immediately  after that, she took her wedding ring off and placed it  on
the President's little finger. It would not go past the knuckle, and  so
when she came in, after they had had the harangue about the autopsy, and
before  we  placed him in the coffin, one of our orderlies  there  --  I
believe  it  was Aubrey Wright -- helped her get the ring on  his  small
finger.

I  had read many accounts of how their marriage was just that,  in  name
only.  But  being in trauma surgery now for thirty years,  I  have  seen
grievances and unhappiness and definite examples of removing the  facade
of  what  one felt. And I still will always believe that  there  was  no
greater example of genuine and intense love for the President than  that
exhibited by Mrs. Kennedy.

GARY NULL:
I  want to thank you very much, Dr. Crenshaw, for sharing your  insights
with us in this special report on cover-ups.

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:
Thank you.

GARY NULL:
Now let's shift gears. I want to go over to two other panelists standing
by: Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics here at CUNY,  the
City  University of New York. Would you give us your comments about  the
physics of the exhibit 399, the single magic bullet?

                           <To Be Continued>