Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in September 11
Sat Jun 27th 2009, 12:04 AM
Perhaps the most crucial issue regarding the question of whether John F. Kennedy was shot by a lone assassin or by more than one gunman acting as part of a conspiracy is the accuracy of the medical evidence as testified to by the doctors and nurses who tried to save Kennedy’s life at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, vs. the accuracy of the autopsy report. The testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses, which I described in my previous post, indicated that at least one bullet, and probably two came from the front. The autopsy report claimed that both bullets came from the back, in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository, where evidence placed Lee Harvey Oswald. Both sets of doctors testified to a very different appearance of the body as they saw it, especially the fatal head wound. There are two possible explanations for that. Either the Parkland doctors and nurses were grossly mistaken as to what they saw, or else the body was altered prior to autopsy. I think that the possibility of so many doctors and nurses being wrong about what they saw is very slim.

Most of the evidence for the body alteration comes from David Lifton’s 699 page book, “Best Evidence – Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy”. Vincent Bugliosi claims to debunk Lifton’s claims in his own 1600 page book, “Reclaiming History”. He devotes 14 pages to debunking Lifton’s claims, in a chapter called “David Lifton and the Alteration of the President’s Body”. This post examines the evidence for alteration of the body prior to autopsy, and Bugliosi’s attempted debunking of that evidence.

If the President’s body was altered prior to the autopsy by those conspiring in his assassination, the purpose of doing that would have been to make it appear at autopsy as if the President’s wounds had been caused by bullets coming from behind him, from the Texas School Book Depository, where evidence placed Lee Harvey Oswald. If that was done, the following steps would likely have been required:

1) Get control of the body prior to autopsy
The conspirators would have had to make sure that the body was not autopsied at Parkland Hospital, as required by Texas law. They would have had to gain control of the body before it was autopsied.

2) Transport the body to a site for body alteration, unseen by non-conspirators
They would have to transport the body to some place where they could make the necessary alterations, unseen by anyone outside of the conspiracy. One possibility would have been to make the alteration at Bethesda Naval Hospital itself, maybe even inside the autopsy room. But given all the public attention focused on that area, that plan might have been considered impossible to pull off in secrecy.

If making the alterations at Bethesda Naval Hospital was considered too risky, they probably would have had to switch the body into a different coffin prior to the autopsy, so that they could transport it, unseen by the public, to a place where they would have the opportunity to make the necessary alterations.

3) Alter the body
They would have had to make the necessary alterations in the body. That would have included the following:

Since the fatal head wound at the back of the head, as described by the Parkland doctors and explained in my previous post, clearly suggested a shot from the front as the most likely possibility, that wound would have to be altered. They couldn’t very well simply cover it up. So they would have had to expand it forward and laterally so that a shot from the back would at least be a plausible explanation for it.

The throat wound would present a major problem if a bullet from the front had entered the throat and then lodged somewhere in the area without exiting the body. The discovery of such a bullet at autopsy, along with the track of the bullet, would constitute clear evidence of where the bullet came from.

Lastly, if the throat wound and the fatal head wound were to be claimed as exit wounds, then the conspirators would have to create corresponding “entrance wounds” on the back of the body.

4) Maintain control of the original coffin from the plane to the autopsy room
If the body were switched to a different coffin on Air Force One, it would be necessary for the conspirators to maintain control of the original coffin (in addition to the coffin with the body in it) until it arrived at the autopsy room. One reason for that is because if anyone else was allowed to handle the original (empty) coffin it might have been obvious that there was no body in it, because it would have felt excessively light.

Then, after arrival at Bethesda with the empty coffin, they would have had to get the empty coffin into the hospital while evading those who normally would have obtained it, for a long enough time to obtain the altered body and load it back into the original coffin.

5) Intimidation of the autopsy physicians
They might also have had to intimidate the autopsy doctors. Despite all their efforts there was no way to know that they would be able to fool experienced pathologists. In case they didn’t, they would need some way of obtaining their cooperation.


With all that in mind, let’s consider the evidence:


Maintaining control of the body prior to autopsy

Lifton’s account
The first step was to make sure that the autopsy was not performed in Texas, as required by state law. In trying to do this, a vicious argument ensued between Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman and Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas County Medical Examiner. Rose tried to explain that state law required the body to be autopsied in Texas, and that removing the body to Washington would interrupt the chain of evidence. But to no avail.

Here is an account of the “argument”, from Lifton’s interview with Aubrey Rike, a Dallas official who was responsible for staying with the casket:

I was scared to death... I was scared all the time I was there... You know, we'd start pushing, and somebody would grab us, and push us back, and pull the casket back. You'd have to see it to believe it... it was the most unorganized, scary type situation I have ever been in my life. I'm a policeman now, and I've been up against all kinds of stuff.

Bugliosi’s rebuttal of Lifton’s account
Bugliosi mentions this incident, and in fact confirms Lifton’s account when he says “Almost physical force was used to prevent the autopsy from being done at Parkland”. But Bugliosi says that, not in support of Lifton’s theory, but against it. His point is that the autopsy could have been done at Parkland, and if that was the case, then the conspirators would have had to have had a team of plastic surgeons available to perform the necessary body alterations.

But Bugliosi’s belief that the autopsy could have been performed at Parkland Hospital seems unrealistic. The account of Rike and others makes it clear that the Secret Service would not have allowed it. It appears that they would have used whatever force was necessary to ensure that no autopsy was performed at Parkland Hospital.


Transport the body to a site for body alteration, unseen by non-conspirators

As noted above, if the body was transported somewhere to be surgically altered, it probably would have had to first been secretly transferred to another coffin, since the original coffin was bound to be carefully (and publicly, on national TV) watched on its way to the autopsy site.

Lifton’s account
Lifton describes his extensive interviews with four persons who noted that Kennedy’s body arrived in a casket that was very different than the one that he was placed in after he died at Parkland Hospital. The Parkland Hospital casket was a fancy bronze casket. The one that these four witnesses observed was a cheap, tin, gray or pinkish-gray casket. The witnesses were: Dennis David, former Navy Lt. Commander, and E6 Petty Officer on November 22, 1963; Paul O’Connor and James Jenkins, laboratory technologists who had the duty of preparing the body for autopsy on November 22nd; and, Floyd Reibe, who had photography duties that day. O’Connor and Reibe also remembered Kennedy being in a body bag when he arrived in that coffin. In addition, Captain John Stover noted Kennedy arriving in a body bag, but didn’t recall the type of coffin. The body bag is important because when Kennedy was placed into the fancy bronze coffin in Dallas he was placed with sheets over him, but definitely not in a body bag.

Lifton also describes what he considers to be a plausible scenario for being switched into a different coffin on the plane, transferred to a site for body alteration, and then transferred to Bethesda Naval Hospital for the autopsy. He devotes an 18 page chapter to how he developed this scenario. I’ll just summarize parts of the scenario here, along with some of the supporting evidence:

Lifton says that it appeared from the public record that the coffin was unattended on Air Force One from 2:18 to 2:32 p.m. He goes on to explain why he believes that, but I won’t discuss that here because I don’t feel that explanation was convincing.

Lifton estimates that the plane landed at Andrews AFB at about 5:58 p.m. He notes that Walter Reed Army Hospital was 13.3 miles away, so that a helicopter could have picked up the body and transported it there by 6:05. That would leave about 30 minutes for doing the body alterations, then putting it on a helicopter and arriving at Bethesda Naval Hospital by about 6:45, which was the time that Dennis David estimated that the unmarked black ambulance arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital with the body in the gray-pink, tin coffin.

In support of the idea that a helicopter picked up the body quickly, Lifton describes the CBS coverage of the landing, in which the announcement of the event was being drowned out by “the turning rotor of a helicopter (1), and an NBC log that indicated that “The Presidential jet is seen arriving, along with an Army helicopter (2).

In support of the idea that the body was taken specifically to Walter Reed, among other evidence, Lifton explains that one of the autopsy doctors, Commander Thornton Boswell, in response to Lifton asking him how he learned that the body was coming to Bethesda Naval Hospital, responded with a description of a telephone call he received that day:

The President’s physician was on the airplane, and he radioed to Washington, and the information either came directly to Walter Reed, or indirectly through some other communication means, to Walter Reed… And he notified me that they were coming…

Bugliosi’s rebuttal of Lifton’s account
Bugliosi saves most of his rebuttal for this particular part of Lifton’s book. He says, “Setting aside Lifton’s delirious ‘everybody had their eyes closed and never saw anything’ theory for a moment…” But then he fails to even mention the most important part of Lifton’s reason for believing that the body was switched into another casket prior to arrival at Bethesda – the four eye-witnesses that Lifton quotes to that effect that the body arrived in a gray or gray-pink, cheap metal casket.

Bugliosi begins his attack on the idea of a coffin switch on the plane by saying “a sine qua non to Lifton’s entire premise is that at various points along the way, no one, literally no one, was paying any attention to the president’s casket, it being left unattended”.

He then goes on to cite a few people offering the opinion that the coffin with the body in it was under constant watch throughout the trip. The biggest devastation to Lifton’s scenario of the switch on the plane comes from a quote by Dave Powers, who says:

The coffin was never unattended. Lifton’s story is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it during that period he says it was unattended…

Though Bugliosi criticizes Lifton’s estimation of the time that the plane landed, he notes himself that flight records had the plane landing at 5:59, one minute off of Lifton’s estimate. He confirms Lifton’s account of a helicopter being present at the time of the plane’s landing.

Bugliosi then goes on to say, “Finally, as if this isn’t enough, Lifton’s fantasy couldn’t have happened because the conspirators would have needed at least three separate teams of plastic surgeons waiting in hiding, one at each of the three hospitals (Parkland, Walter Reed, and Bethesda Naval Hospital).

My interpretation
Bugliosis’ initial assertion is not quite true. Lifton’s premise does not require that at “various points along the way… literally no one was paying any attention to the president’s casket…” First of all, it requires only one point along the way – perhaps for 2-5 minutes. And on a plane that may have had several co-conspirators flying on it, it wouldn’t require that “literally no one” was paying attention – only that those not involved in the conspiracy weren’t paying attention.

Bugliosi’s assertion that three teams of plastic surgeons would have been required is likewise not true. They wouldn’t have needed anyone at Parkland, since they made sure that the autopsy wasn’t performed there. Nor would they have required one at Bethesda Naval Hospital if they planned to do the alterations at Walter Reed. Bugliosi points out that Jacqueline Kennedy didn’t decide that the autopsy would be done at Bethesda until the last minute. So what? If she had decided to have it done at Walter Reed, that probably would have made it easier for the conspirators, since that’s where the alterations were done. And furthermore, plastic surgeons weren’t needed for the job that was done.

The biggest obstacle to Lifton’s scenario is Dave Powers’ statement, noted above. It doesn’t seem at all likely that Powers was in on the conspiracy. So his statement carries a lot of weight.

But weighing against that statement is a need to explain how the description of the wound given by the Parkland doctors differed so markedly from the description given by the autopsy doctors, and why four witnesses noticed the body arrive at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a different coffin. Those things demand an explanation.

Maybe Powers’ memory on this isn’t 100% correct. Didn’t he even take a bathroom break during this long flight? Maybe he was away from the coffin for a short time but considered it “attended” because it was being watched by someone he trusted, but who was in on the conspiracy. Support for a scenario of that nature comes from a book written by Powers and O’Donnell themselves, “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye”, in their description of Lyndon Johnson taking the Presidential oath, as related by Ron Ecker:

Finally Judge Hughes appeared, and Johnson asked all of us who were in the back of the plane with President Kennedy’s casket to come up to the front to attend his oath-taking ceremony. I (O’Donnell) found everybody standing around and waiting again, although the judge was ready with President Kennedy’s Bible in her hand. I asked Johnson why he was still delaying. He said he was waiting for Mrs. Kennedy, which bothered me because I felt that attending the swearing-in might be upsetting for her. ‘She said she wants to be here when I take the oath,’ Johnson said. ‘Why don’t you see what’s keeping her?’”

Ecker continues:

O’Donnell went and got Jackie, after which the book clearly leaves it understood that no one was left in the rear of the aircraft until after LBJ was sworn in. This was time and opportunity enough for the body to be snatched.


Alteration of the body

Lifton’s account

The fatal head wound
In my last post I discussed in detail the vast differences between the description of the fatal head wound by the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital, compared to the autopsy doctors. This, plus other evidence of striking differences between what the Parkland doctors said they saw vs. what the autopsy doctors saw, constitutes the primary evidence for Lifton’s assertion that the body was altered prior to autopsy. Here is Lifton’s summary, from my last post, of the different descriptions of the fatal head wound. He begins with the autopsy doctors’ description:

There was a huge hole about six inches across in the top of the head. The hole extended all the way from the rear of the skull, in the occipital area, nearly six inches toward the front, and was completely uncovered. Dr. Humes said its largest dimension was “approximately 13 cm” (3)…. At the autopsy, Commander Boswell made a drawing of the skull which depicted the wound as a roughly rectangular area with measurement of 10 by 17 cm. Inside that area, Boswell had written “missing.” (4) At the rear of the head, just beneath the large hole, one inch to the right of the centerline, Commander Humes reported the existence of a small rectangular entry wound – 15 by 6 mm in size…

That is not the way the President’s head appeared earlier that afternoon, at Parkland Memorial Hospital. None of the Dallas doctors saw the small “entry” wound subsequently reported by Commander Humes. More important, the only major wound noted by the Parkland doctors (5) – approximately 5 to 7 cm. in diameter – was located in the right rear portion of the head. The bones were sprung outward, and a flap of scalp was associated with the wound. The top of the President’s head was in place – it was not “missing.”

Additional support for the Parkland doctors’ description of the fatal head wound comes from Lifton’s interview with laboratory technician James Jenkins, who viewed the initial entry of Kennedy’s body into Bethesda Naval Hospital:

When I told Jenkins that the autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. “That’s not possible. That is totally – you know, there’s no possible way. Okay? It’s not possible…

Jenkins account suggests that President Kennedy’s body, even though altered, was not altered sufficiently to create the unambiguous appearance of a shot from the rear.

The throat wound
The bullet wound in the throat, which the Parkland doctors referred to as an entrance wound (meaning that the bullet came from the front), was obliterated during their attempt to save the President’s life, when Dr. Carrico made a tracheotomy incision. Dr. Perry had described the tracheotomy incision as measuring 2-3 cm, compared to Dr. James Humes, the autopsy physician, who testified before the Warren Commission that the incision was 7-8 cm (6), and whose notes described it as “a 6.5 cm long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges.” (7) That sentence depicted two important differences with the incision as seen at Parkland: The length of the incision and the “gaping irregular edges”, which were said to have been smooth at Parkland. When Lifton asked Perry whether the incision could have been as large as 4.5 cm, Perry said that he doubted it was that large.

The idea that the throat was altered was given additional credence by Dr. John Ebersole, who noted that the throat wound was sutured (8), which was clearly not the case when the body left Parkland Hospital.

The back wound
The alleged back wound was concluded by the autopsy physicians and the Warren report to be the point of entry for the bullet that caused the throat wound. This wound was not noted by the Parkland doctors, though it is possible that they could have missed it, since Kennedy was lying on his back when they tried to save his life.

However, a major problem with the back wound is the observations of laboratory technician James Jenkins, who observed the autopsy. From Lifton’s interview with Jenkins:

He remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that… he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me it was very shallow… it would have been no way that that (bullet) could have exited in the front.

Bugliosi’s rebuttal
Of all Bugliosi’s rebuttals, his rebuttal (or non-rebuttal would be a better term) to the heart of Lifton’s argument shows more than anything else that Bugliosi had very little understanding of Lifton’s book.

Bugliosi says that “The centerpiece of his (Lifton’s) fantasy was found in a … FBI document… written by FBI special agents Francis O’Neill Jr. and James W. Sibert… (which noted) surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull”.

That was not at all the “centerpiece” of Lifton’s “fantasy”. The centerpiece of his book was the vast differences in the body, as viewed by the Parkland doctors vs. the autopsy doctors.

Secondly, Bugliosi says that Lifton claimed the head wound noted by the Parkland doctors to be an entry wound, when in fact Lifton devoted vast portions of his book to documenting that it was an exit wound.

Bugliosi barely mentions the vastly different descriptions, by the two sets of doctors, of the head wound, to which Lifton devotes large sections of his book. He does quote from the autopsy report that “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures 13 cm in greatest diameter”. In doing that, Bugliosi (perhaps inadvertently) confirms Lifton’s description of the autopsy report. But Bugliosi adds a footnote to that statement, stating that “Dr. Michael Baden told me… the photographs and X-rays taken at the time of the autopsy clearly show that no additional incisions were made anywhere on his body after it left Parkland and prior to the autopsy at Bethesda.”

That is just absurd. Either Bugliosi quoted Baden incorrectly, or else Dr. Baden’s statement is absurd. The wound description to which the footnote concerning Dr. Baden’s statement is attached is nothing like what the Parkland doctors described. It is far larger and extends much farther forward and to the top of the skull (See Lifton’s account, above, or for a much more detailed account, my previous post on the medical evidence as reported by the Parkland doctors.)

Bugliosi dismisses the enlargement of the throat wound by saying “Lifton says the plotters enlarged the wound in the throat (ignoring the fact that the tracheotomy at Parkland had already done that)”. How much of Lifton’s book did Bugliosi read?! Lifton doesn’t ignore the tracheotomy at all. To the contrary, he describes interviews he had with several of the Parkland doctors regarding the size of the tracheotomy incision, which as noted above was much smaller than what Humes noted in his autopsy report.

And finally, Bugliosi doesn’t even mention James Jenkins’ characterization of the shallowness of the back wound, which casts serious doubt on that wound (or body alteration as the case may be) representing an entry for a bullet that exited the throat.


Maintaining control of the original coffin from the plane to the autopsy room

In order to provide cover for their alterations of the body, the conspirators would need to make a public show of transporting the original coffin from the plane to Bethesda Naval Hospital, then load the altered body into the original casket while attracting as little attention as possible, and then have the body in the original casket brought into the autopsy room. Lifton presents dozens of pages of several interviews with eye-witnesses that led him to the conclusion that that is exactly what happened. In addition to describing the eye-witness accounts of the arrival of the gray metal casket with the body in a body bag, described above, here is some evidence of how the conspirators maintained control of the original coffin long enough to carry out their plan:

Lifton’s account
The Army provided a “casket team” of six soldiers who were supposed to obtain the casket for transportation to Bethesda Naval Hospital as it was unloaded off of Air Force One After landing at Andrews AFB. When the casket team tried to obtain the casket (which unbeknownst to them did not contain the body), however, they were pushed out of the way by Secret Service agents (9), who loaded the casket into an ambulance, which then proceeded by motorcade to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The Army casket team then proceeded by helicopter to Bethesda to await the body.

The motorcade with the original but now empty coffin (supposedly containing the body) arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m. (AFTER the arrival of the plain grey casket which contained the body). But the Army casket team was still not allowed to obtain the casket. There are a number of similar accounts by members of the casket team as to how this happened, but here is a portion of the one that I find the most revealing – a taped interview of Army casket team member Hubert Clark, by Lifton:

“I think there was a decoy, supposedly to get the people away from the hospital... And we went around to the back I remember driving some distance ... before we actually came in contact with the real casket ..."

Lifton asked if he remembered losing the ambulance. Clark responded:

“I ... we lost it ... We were saying, 'Now where the hell is he?... Why is he speeding?' And we were trying to figure out, 'Well, why is he going so fast? We're going to lose him.' ... and we were saying to each other ... 'What, is he trying to lose us?'..."

Clark said that he thought the ride lasted 10-15 minutes and that the truck got up to speeds of 45 or 50:

”We followed the ambulance until we lost it .. And then it was ... another fifteen minutes trying to find ... to get back to where we started from.”

Bugliosi’s rebuttal of Lifton’s account
Bugliosi gives the following account of this part of Lifton’s book:

In Lifton’s psychotic (and psychedelic) scenario… “the body was transported into the Dallas casket” (the expensive bronze one) and taken outside and put into the “correct” ambulance. The casket was then removed from the ambulance by the District of Washington casket team and brought back into the morgue for the commencement of the autopsy at 8 p.m.

Thus he rebuts the whole thing by referring to Lifton’s account as psychotic. He does not mention how the Secret Service denied the casket to the Army casket team at Andrews Air Force Base, for the trip to Bethesda. Nor does he mention the description of the ambulance chase around Bethesda Hospital required to further deny the Army casket team access to the casket prior to loading the body into it, which Lifton recorded in a taped interview. Nor does he mention that Lifton developed the above scenario through dozens of pages of interviews with numerous on-the-scene witnesses, some who observed the body in the gray-pink metal casket, and others who observed it (later) in the bronze casket.

Additional note
It is also important to note, as Lifton describes, and Bugliosi confirms, that a verbal order went out from the Surgeon General Edward Kenney to all witnesses to events surrounding the autopsy, on November 22, confirmed four days later (page 72) in writing that “You are reminded that you are under verbal orders of the Surgeon General, United States Navy, to discuss with no one events connected with your official duties on the evening of 22 November – 23 November 1963. This letter constitutes official notification… You are warned that infraction of these orders makes you liable to Court Martial proceedings under…” That order was lifted in 1978, so that the House Select Committee on Assassinations would be able to interview witnesses.

It should be evident that such an order would tend to prevent the embarrassing release of information to the effect that different witnesses saw Kennedy’s body arrive in different coffins.


Intimidation of the autopsy physicians

Lifton (and others) have described a great deal of evidence that the autopsy physicians were intimidated. I’ll describe a small bit of it here:

First, Lifton notes that from the beginning, Humes was forbidden to discuss the autopsy with anyone (10).

Then there is the trial of Clay Shaw, at which Dr. Pierre Finck, one of the autopsy physicians, was cross-examined by Alvin Oser. This was described by Jim Garrison, a Louisiana District Attorney, in his book, “On the Trail of the Assassins”. Oser asked Finck seven times why he didn’t “dissect the track of that particular bullet (the one that caused the throat wound) in the victim”, and each time Oser dodged the question (A finding that the track didn’t extend to the other side of the body would have proven that the throat wound was an entrance wound). Finally, Oser says:

Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: WHY did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? WHY?

Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.

Then there was Lifton’s interview with J.S. Layton Ledbetter, who was Chief of the Day of the Medical Center command on November 22, 1963. Ledbetter told Lifton:

These three gentlemen walked up to me and they said: “Are you Chief Ledbetter?... We’re Secret Service men receiving the body of President Kennedy back here, and … there’s already 26 of us here on the compound. They identified themselves.” They made clear that from that point forward, it was a Secret Service operation. The Secret Service men seen by Ledbetter at 4:20 p.m. are as unknown to the official records of the investigation as…

And, from the interview that Lifton had with James Jenkins, who observed the autopsy and some of its aftermath, Jenkins told Lifton:

“There were no conclusions that night… There were some… discussions between the three physicians, with a couple of other people – I don’t know who they were. They seemed to be in charge, or seemed to be some type of authority… It had made a vivid impression. There was temperament, anger, and rumblings… The people running around in civilian clothes… had a preconcluded idea, and … because it was not panning out, you know, they were very – there were a lot of animosities, to be quite frank with you… there were very short tempers…This would be found, and somebody would say, ‘No, that’s not right; can’t be, that type of thing. That’s not possible.’ I even felt like – and this was my opinion, I don’t know how they felt about it – that… someone was chastising them…. The civilians who seemed to be in charge seemed to be trying to get Humes to conclude that a bullet passed from back to front through the body.” Jenkins had a clear recollection that that wasn’t possible.

Bugliosi’s rebuttal of Lifton’s account
Bugliosi doesn’t even mention any of this. All he has to say on the subject is “He (Lifton) doesn’t even say how the three autopsy surgeons and every other pathologist, including the nine forensic pathologists on the HSCA medical panel, all concluded that the two wounds to the back side of the president were caused by bullets.”


Conclusion

So it is that Bugliosi demonstrated only the shallowest of an understanding of Lifton’s book and consequently ignored his most important arguments or grossly mischaracterized them. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, given Bugliosi’s attitude towards Lifton’s book. Bugliosi says near the beginning of his chapter on Lifton:

One theory that perhaps “takes the cake” is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book Best Evidence. The theory is so unhinged that it really doesn’t deserve one word in any serious treatment of the assassination. The only problem is that it comes wrapped in a hefty 747-page book, which was published in 1980 by a prominent publisher, was treated seriously by many people who should know better, got excellent reviews in several major newspapers, was a Book of the Month Club selection, and was on the New York Times best-seller list for three months, rising as high as number four. Therefore, I am forced to devote some time to talking about nonsense of the most exquisite nature.

To Bugliosi’s credit, he does give Lifton some much deserved credit:

In addition to praise for his thorough research, Lifton does deserve one other compliment. Unlike the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists, he does not deliberately twist, warp, and lie about the official record. Such honesty, together with his being an indefatigable and resourceful investigator, would make him a worthy adversary if he had common sense on his side.

But David Lifton, a graduate of Cornell University School of Engineering Physics and a computer engineer in the Apollo space program, makes plenty of sense. Bugliosi’s words to the contrary notwithstanding (I believe that Bugliosi would admit this if asked to think about it), Lifton did not conduct his investigation with the intent of proving any preconceived idea, but rather it was a several year struggle to find the truth. Lifton describes almost every clue he came across in chronological sequence and in great detail, revising his theory numerous times along the way, as scientists do in their attempts to find scientific truths. The final two paragraphs of Lifton’s book explain why he devoted so many years to his effort – and to a lesser extent, why I have posted as many times as I have on this subject:

This position… represents a cynical view of our society. It presumes the gullibility and timidity of the electorate, and the absolute sanctity of vested authority. It is a view that I do not want to accept. Yet I must concede that even if there is a new investigation, it is unlikely that the architects of this plot can be identified or brought to justice. But that is not the point. The disguise they erected must be torn down, and it must be done officially. That would be the most important outcome of a new investigation. If we cannot have justice, perhaps we can at least have the truth. At present, the disguise erected by the plotters not only conceals their identity, but some fundamental truths about our country. It hides the fact that some time during Kennedy’s thousand days, a secret veto was cast on his presidency and his life.


Unlinked references

1) Author’s transcript of CBS network broadcast, 11-22-63
2) NBC-TV broadcast at 6:00 p.m., as recorded in “There was a President”, pp. 21-22
3) Bethesda Autopsy Report, page 3
4) Warren Commission Exhibit 397
5) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 6
6) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 2, page 361
7) Bethesda Autopsy Report, page 3
8) Philadelphia Enquirer, “Celebrity in their Midst”, 3-10-78
9) Military District of Washington, D.C. – Bird Report, 12-10-63
10) New York Times – 12-6-63

Discuss (52 comments) | Recommend (+6 votes)
U.S. Democracy in Crisis
Time for change


The Democratic Underground was born on one of the worst days in U.S history – The day that the worst President in U.S. history took office.

Now, here we are 8 years later, and we’ve managed to remove that cancer from our nation and replace it with something much better. Notwithstanding my many ambivalent feelings towards President Obama, I have no doubt that he will be infinitely better for our country than his predecessor.

Yet despite that, our country has been terribly scarred from the events of the past eight years, and it continues to suffer from all of the root problems that brought us the worst President in our history in 2000 and 2004. Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the root problems that brought us to this sorry state of affairs.


MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES

One thing that we must keep in mind when considering our current problems is that they are not new. They were greatly exacerbated by eight years of Bush administration misrule, but they did not start with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.


Money in politics

All but the most naïve of the American citizenry know that the wealthy and powerful in our country routinely influence our local and national elections through huge campaign contributions. And they also know that they are generally well rewarded for their “contributions”. And they also know that bribery is presumably against the law in our country. Yet, on the rare occasion that our politicians are actually accused of bribery, our news media makes a great big deal over it, as if bribery is actually a rare event in American politics.

The end result is that a great many of our politicians do everything they can to make their wealthiest constituents happy with them, at the expense of everyone else. They do that with the knowledge that the voters they lose in doing so will be more than compensated for by the disinformation that will be paid for by their wealthiest constituents. I discuss this situation in more detail here, here, and here.

There are a few dots to connect here, but any reasonable assessment of American politics tells us that bribery is routinely used to buy and sell elections in our country. So routine is it that it is actually built into our system and legalized. But that fact is never overtly spoken of. To do so would imply that our system of government is as much or more an aristocracy than it is a democracy.

Bill Moyers, in his book “Moyers on Democracy”, explains the situation bluntly:

We have lost the ability to call the most basic transaction by its right name. If a baseball player stepping up to home plate were to lean over and hand the umpire a wad of bills before he called the pitch, we’d call that a bribe. But when a real estate developer buys his way into the White House and gets a favorable government ruling that wouldn’t be available to you or me, what do we call that? A “campaign contribution”.

Let’s call it what it is: a bribe.

The legality of contributing money to political candidates, with the implicit (though not explicit) understanding that that money will buy political favoritism, has been defended by both our courts and our Congress by sanctimoniously pointing to the free speech provisions in the First Amendment to our Constitution and claiming that money is speech. But the absurdity of that contention should be obvious to anyone with some primary school education. Speech is of value from a political standpoint (or any other standpoint) only when it is heard. But if one billionaire has one thousand times as much opportunity to speak through a medium which reaches millions than several thousand other people added together, the speech of that one billionaire will drown out the speech of most other people, thereby interfering with their right to free speech.


Election fraud

Electronic vote switching with DRE (direct-recording electronic) machines poses a great danger to the integrity of our election system – by virtue of its ability to switch a voter’s vote without being noticed by the voter. In other words, someone tries to vote for John Kerry, and the machine registers a vote for George Bush instead. What makes matters worse is that many or most of these machines don’t even produce a piece of paper with the vote on it, which can then later be used for a recount. So, if fraud is suspected there is no recourse. And worse yet is the fact that most of these machines use proprietary (secret) code to determine who the voter voted for.

We know for a fact that vote-switching occurred in the 2004 election. One study, based on voter reports to the national Electronic Incident Reporting System (EIRS), showed that vote switching incidents favored Bush over Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1 nationally. A similar study showed that these vote switching incidents that favored Bush were 9 times as common in the heavily contested “swing states” than in non-swing states. To make the point that the EIRS reports represent only a small fraction of actual Election Day problems, an investigation by the Washington Post identified about 25 electronic voting machines in Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio, that were said to have been switching votes all day long. Yet only eight incidents of this nature from Mahoning County (all in favor of Bush) were reported to EIRS that day.

Clint Curtis, a computer programmer working in Florida prior to the 2004 election, testified before the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee that he was requested in 2000 by his boss (at the request of a high level Republican operative, Tom Feeney) to “develop a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in an election and be undetectable”. Curtis’ testimony was followed by the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Curtis’ allegations was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”,

Another type of election fraud is the illegal purging of registered voters from the voter rolls. Like vote switching, the increasing computerization of voter registration is no doubt making it much easier to perpetrate this type of fraud on a mass basis.

This article describes a great deal of evidence that voter registration fraud played a major role in the 2004 presidential election, and in fact was probably the deciding factor in Ohio, which gave George Bush his electoral victory. Similarly, although the 2000 presidential election was stolen by a variety of means, voter registration fraud was quantitatively the most important method used. In 2000, the Florida Governor’s office used a computer program to purge tens of thousands of mostly black and Democratic voters.

There are many other means of election fraud that have been used in our country to destabilize our democracy. I discuss this issue in more detail, along with means for preventing election fraud, in this post.


Our corporate news media

If cash donated to their political campaigns is not enough to carry them through to victory, and if election fraud doesn’t happen to play a significant role, the corporate news media serves as another valuable tool for those seeking to sabotage our democracy. This problem overlaps with the role of money in politics, since those who own and control the corporate media are uniformly wealthy, and since it was their money that led to the acts that enabled our corporate media to become what it is today – Ronald Reagan’s veto of Democratic legislation to enforce the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This legislation allowed the monopoly consolidation of our news media to the point where today it is controlled by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals.

Several excellent books have been written about the extent to which wealthy corporate interests control our news media today. I would highly recommend “Lapdogs – How the Press rolled Over for Bush”, by Eric Boehlert, “What Liberal Media – The Truth About BIAS and the News”, by Eric Alterman, and “Into the Buzzsaw – The Myth of a Free Press”, edited by Kristina Borjesson. And I have ranted about pseudo-journalists such as Tim Russert, who have made a largely successful, but hypocritical effort to appear unbiased to their viewers.

The bottom line, as Bill Moyers points out, is that the protection offered us by our First Amendment is based on the assumption of a separation of our government and a free press, which is supposed to protect us from government abuses. Moyers wrote this during the Bush administration:

What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands, ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation". Giant media conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state.

Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know.


Secrecy in government

Democracy suffers terribly when a nation’s citizens are uninformed – especially when they are uninformed with respect to the actions and motivations of their own government. If we don’t know what our government is doing, then how can we be expected to vote them out when they do something that we would consider deeply immoral had we known about it?

Consider war for example. If Americans understood the real motivations for its nation’s wars, they would probably be much more likely to strenuously object to those wars. That would make war much less politically feasible, and our country would therefore be led into war much less frequently than it has been in the past.

That is why I so hate the “national security” excuse for withholding information from us, the American people – which has become so routine that it is willingly or passively accepted by the good majority of Americans. I very much doubt that the “national security” excuse for withholding information from the American people has anything to do with national security more than 5% of the time. Rather, the reason for withholding such information from us is almost always something totally different. It is to blind us to the real reasons for war or other nefarious acts, so that we will accept them and willingly support or even risk our lives in their cause.


Rampant U.S. nationalism and the GAME

Two months ago I wrote a DU post that I titled “The GAME”, which I began by discussing “Unmentionable things in U.S. politics” – including such things as the stealing of a U.S. presidential election, calling American military or covert actions immoral rather than merely “misguided”, and imputing bad intentions rather than mere incompetence to a U.S. president.

I find this to be terribly repressive, not because I personally can’t mention these things, but because our elected representatives are under tremendous pressure not to discuss them. We elect them to represent us and our nation, and except for some rare courageous exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Robert Wexler, they refuse to even talk about some of our very most important issues.

It has occurred to me that this provides the backdrop for a huge GAME that has been foisted upon us. A prerequisite of the GAME is to create an alternate reality that must be believed by a critical mass of people in order for the GAME to proceed. Why is that necessary? I believe it’s necessary because the reality is so terrible that if enough people consciously recognized it they would rise up and simply refuse to play the GAME.

Although the GAME’s masters set the rules, there are two related character traits of many Americans that cause them to play along: Rampant nationalism and a propensity for denial. Rampant nationalism is the attitude that our country is inherently better than any other country – so much so that it can do no wrong. This attitude is drummed into the American people from the time that most of us learn how to talk. We are made to feel that to believe or speak otherwise demonstrates a dangerous lack of “patriotism”, which makes us deserving of being shunned – or worse.

The other character trait that persuades too many Americans to play the GAME is denial. Believing terrible things about one’s country can be very painful. Accepting reality as it is, rather than as one would like it to be, can be very painful. To make this point, in a recent post titled “12 Things that Never Happened in American History”, I discuss the following official stories that we have been told (or not told):

The U.S. is not an imperialist country; FDR’s New Deal was not instrumental in ending the Great Depression; the Cold War was just about fighting totalitarian Communism; JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman; bribery is infrequent in American politics; Iran-Contra was not a criminal abuse of presidential power; U.S. presidential elections cannot be stolen; Bush and Cheney did everything they could to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; the Bush administration’s crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment or prosecution; and, we’re barely told about our nation’s killing of more than a million Iraqi civilians, the October Surprise, or Operation Northwoods.


CONSEQUENCES

These impediments to democracy work together to surrender great amounts of power into the hands of a small number of elites, who use that power in the cause of increasing their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. It is a vicious cycle that is very difficult to break. Here are some of the major tragic consequences.


Rampant militarism and illegal aggression against sovereign nations

We are so often told how good and pure our nation and its people are that only a minority of Americans are aware of the extent of our many illegal and immoral activities. Many or most who aren’t aware of these activities would be shocked to learn about them and quite resistant to accepting that information as the truth.

In myriad instances we have overthrown or assisted in the overthrow of sovereign nations. In the good majority of these instances we have substituted a repressive right wing government for one that was much more responsive to the needs and desires of the nation’s citizenry. Sometimes genocide was used to accomplish our goals. The purpose of these activities has most often been to create a government that is friendlier to the desires of American businesses or corporations – though we always have some sort of rationalization for our actions.

In “Excuses for War” I discuss many of the phony excuses that the United States government has used to lead us into war, including its Indian wars, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Vietnam War.

In “The Roots and Consequences of U.S. Overseas Imperialism” I note or discuss our covert and overt illegal and immoral overthrowing of the sovereign nations of Hawaii (1893), Cuba (1898), Puerto Rico (1898), the Philippines (1899-1902), Nicaragua (1910), Honduras (1911-1912), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), South Vietnam (1963), Chile (1973), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003).

In “The Meaning of U.S. Imperialism, Genocide and Militarism” I note U.S. perpetrated genocides, as described in “State of Darkness” by David Model, including our atomic bombing of Japan (1945), those perpetrated against Guatemala (1954), Vietnam (1954-73), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970-75), Laos (1969-74), and East Timor (1975), and our two wars against Iraq.

Other atrocities include our invasion of Cuba in 1961; U.S. Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to put down a rebellion against their repressive right wing government; U.S. military support of Haitian tyrant and mass murderer, Francois Duvalier; and numerous brutal interventions in several Latin American and African nations.


Massive Income and wealth inequality

Inequality of wealth in the United States is truly astounding – and it is increasing at a fast rate. In the United States in 2001, 1% of the population controlled 38% of the wealth, whereas the bottom 40% owned just 1%. That means that, on average, individuals in the top 1% owned about 1,500 times more wealth than individuals in the bottom 40%.

The rising level of income inequality in our country recently exceeded the point where it stood just prior to the stock market crash of 1929, which led to the worst depression in U.S. history. There are many who see a connection between the income inequality preceding that depression and our current situation. This graph, which plots income inequality measured as the ratio between the average income of the top 0.01% of U.S. families compared to the bottom 90%, over time, makes that point.

I discuss the subject of income and wealth inequality here, here, and here.


The loss of the rule of law

During the Bush Presidency I often argued that he should be impeached for his many crimes. Now that he can no longer be impeached, I have argued that our Justice Department should prosecute him for those crimes, and if it fails to do so then the International Criminal Court (ICC) should step in.

While Bush was still President, President Obama weighed in against impeachment, saying that impeachment should be reserved for only the most serious crimes. Now that he is President he has thus far given little or no indication that he intends to have his Justice Department prosecute George Bush or any other high level Bush administration official for their crimes. But if widespread torture, an illegal war of aggression, spying on American citizens, suspending of the right of habeas corpus, and numerous other violations of our Constitution don’t constitute serious crimes, then what does?

What would people say if a prosecuting attorney failed to prosecute a rapist and murderer simply because he had high level political connections? Who would accept that? Then why when far more serious crimes are committed by a President of the United States are there so many people who seem to think that it is ok to sit passively by and make no attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes?

I’ll tell you why. It’s like I said earlier in this post. Saying that a former U.S. President might be guilty of prosecutable crimes is simply against the rules of the GAME. Given that and the failure to hold the Reagan administration accountable for its Iran-Contra crimes, George Bush and Dick Cheney connected the dots and thought that they might be able to get away with just about anything. Testing that assumption by moving ahead with prosecutions might be politically risky for the Obama administration. The Republican Party would no doubt raise holy hell if there was an attempt to prosecute high level Bush administration officials.

Consequently, we live in country in which, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, certain people are indeed above the law. That fact, taken together with all of the impediments to democracy discussed in the first part of this post, means that democracy and the rule of law in our country are in grave danger. Indeed, some believe that we narrowly averted a military coup perpetrated by the Bush administration.

The American people and their leaders need to reassess what our country stands for. Is our democracy important enough to take steps to remove the role of money in politics, reform our election system, break up the corporate monopoly on our news media, require government actions to be much more transparent than they now are, and dare to look more objectively at who we are and what we do? Can we give up imperialism and warfare for the sake a world in which nations live and work together to further the cause of peace and justice? Can we make our nation one in which all of its citizens truly have the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And do our laws apply to all people, not just to those who lack the political influence to avoid them?

If we think that these things are important we have a great deal of work to do, lest our country sinks into a tyranny from which it may never recover.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
11169 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
The Usual Suspects
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStarStarStarStar
HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL!!
89 recs : By tomm2thumbs
I do not support this bill
88 recs : By AllentownJake
StarStarStarStar
StarStarStar
My Forums
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.