Good evening, welcome to our fourth
presentation of our JFK60 series presented by
the Osher
Lifelong Learning institute at the university
of North Texas and JFK Expert Mr Dory Wiley
before I hand the microphone over to Mr Wiley I
just wanted to go over a couple of housekeeping
rules suggestions please silence your cell
phones y'all are heard last time my husband got
in trouble
also a reminder that we have bussers coming
around to take a place so no need to bring them
to us
I would also like to ask if you would hold your
questions until the end of the presentation.
This event is being recorded, and when
questions come out of the microphone, we're not
able to capture them.
So please hold your questions until the end of
the presentation.
We will have staff members coming around with
microphones so you can ask your questions at
that time.
We also have a book signing, book purchase and
book signing after this event.
And at that time, we will, if you plan on
purchasing a book and getting it signed, you
will exit this door to your left.
And that will make the flow easier to
participate in that.
So I'm going to hand the microphone over to
Dory to do a proper introduction of our
presenter this evening.
Thank you, Dr. Reichen.
How's everyone this evening?
Well, we continue on our journey, our JFK 60
series, and really appreciate you all coming out.
So we'll do our little annual, annual, our poll again.
So how many of you here were the first one?
How many of you for the second one?
The third one?
Some really good attendance.
Do we have gold stars?
All righty.
And how many of you for all of them? Wow.
Okay, good.
So, well, what you'll see is tonight is really special.
Yes, I'm an expert on JFK assassination, but I
don't really count.
It's just a thing I'm really excited about.
You're going to experience more living history
tonight with a guy that's actually part of it.
He's not only a JFK assassination expert, he's
part of the history.
And so we're really, really excited about that.
I may interrupt him from time to time because
we're catering to the record here because this
is recorded.
And there's some things that I want to make
sure that we get on record, not only on tape,
but also for what we're doing over the series.
If you listen to what I talk about the first
night, some of the things we covered on the
other nights,
some of the things that we're going to cover in
the last two presentations are going to be,
what you hear tonight is going to be relevant
to the discussion, okay?
So I do want to make a special introduction tonight.
One, we have Ms. Judith Baker here, so raise
your hand if you want to.
Judith Baker will be in the next presentation
on October 24th,
where we will be doing her testimony and
cross-examination about what happened
with her and Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans
in the summer of 1963.
It will be very interesting. I promise you, you
will not fall asleep.
The other warm welcome I want you to give is to
Robert Grogan here.
Raise your hand. Do you remember in the first
night I introduced you -
when America was told in 1963, Dan Rather gets
on air and says,
says, hey, I've seen the film, and the
president, he was hit,
and he learns forward, and the whole bit.
And then we didn't know.
We didn't know until 1975 when Geraldo put it
on air.
And we saw it for the first time.
How many of you remember seeing that?
I remember it.
Well, the expert Geraldo had on air,
they had a copy of the Zapruder film
that is the number one expert on the Zapruder
film in America,
This is that guy, Robert Crowe.
So we're excited to have him here tonight.
Bob invited him to come out as a guest.
So with that, he does have these books tonight.
Now, I encourage you to bring those books.
They're not JFK assassination books, but he's
written 24 books.
And this one is a little bit relevant and very interesting.
And I know you'll like it, but I want him to
tell you a little bit about it.
So he's all humble about it.
I said, no, bring your books because they'll
want to know something about your time as a
prosecutor in the DA's office in the homicide area.
So I'll introduce him here in just a minute.
But what I want to do is give you a special
welcome that we got this week from a very close
friend of Mr. Tannenbaum's.
He sent this in, and so I thought we'd play it
for him.
Hey, everybody.
I'm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I want to thank the University of North Texas
for holding this series commemorating the 60th
anniversary of the death of my uncle, President
John F. Kennedy.
And I want to thank all of you for
participating in these important conversations.
The death of my uncle was a painful moment for
the entire nation as well as my family.
It's critical that we gather together to
discuss, to debate, to engage with our history
so that we can chart a better future for all Americans,
a future that's founded on the values my uncles
stood for,
like peace, transparency, freedom, and justice
for all,
and that, above all, is based upon truth about
our history.
I wish you all a great evening.
You know, we couldn't have said it better, we
couldn't have said it any better.
That is why we're doing what we're doing. We're
just truth seekers.
And I can tell you after spending time with Mr.
Tannenbaum, we are so blessed that he
represented America
at the House Select Committee of Assassination
as a lead investigator, the deputy counsel,
because he's a truth seeker.
He's a right-wrong, he's incorruptible, and
we're very lucky to have him there.
Because I've got to tell you, you may not know
this, not everybody gets appointed to positions
in Washington, D.C.
Act that way. I know, I know, you're surprised
and you're shocked.
But I can tell you he is incorruptible, and
he's a wonderful American.
He's got a wonderful history as District
Attorney, Assistant District Attorney.
in charge of the Homicide Division in New York
City, which I can't imagine that he'd be very
busy there.
And that's why they went after him, and they
took him to D.C. to work on the House Select
Committee of Assassinations.
So without further ado, give him a nice warm
welcome. We're very lucky to have him.
We're very lucky to have his wife joining us
and his son.
And my wife is here tonight, so thank you for
your support and tolerating me.
And we'll turn it over to you, Bob. Go ahead.
Thank you . very much, Bob. That was a heck of
a nice introduction.
I do want to straighten the record out on one thing.
I was in law school at Berkeley. I went out on
a basketball scholarship from Brooklyn to the
University of California at Berkeley.
They had just won the NCAA championship in 59,
and in 1968 was the law school, and I had
worked on my first campaign with JFK, and the
whole notion of - I guess I could put it into
just a few words - is that JFK represented what
we hoped would have been Canada with respect to honesty,
with respect to disclosure, and of course the
murder changed everything.
And then I worked for Bobby Kennedy when he
ran, and then he was gunned down,
and of course that changed a lot of everything
we really cared about.
And I want to just correct the record that I am
not a party person.
I'm just a common-sense American, and that goes
a long way in describing exactly who I am.
I, because of what's happening today in Israel
and hearing about the murders of babies, among
others, I just wanted to tell you a quick
anecdotal story.
50 years ago in 73 on October 6th I met a young
young man who ultimately where the small town
where I live wanted to build some hotels and he
wound up building a world of a story after many
years I urge you to go there I think you'll get
a kick out of it but he told me the following
In 73, as he graduated, he was 20 years old, as
he graduated from service, as he graduated
from the service academy and became a second
lieutenant in the IDF, the Israeli Defense
Force, he told me that he was stopped on his
way home to celebrate with his family on October
was October 6th, and the war had just started.
That is to say, there were six divisions of
Egyptian tanks in the Sinai. Israel was not
prepared, and they were concerned about Syria
marching down south through the Gulf.
Golda Meir was the prime minister, and he was
then stationed with President Sharon in
the Tank Corps.
And then when the orders came down to defend
Israel, he was in battle in the Tank Corps.
And he rarely ever tells anybody this, but when
you work with me, I've lied to everybody,
So it's an equal path.
I'll give you the answers that I know best.
I expect that from the people I work with.
And the battle continued.
And Israel was in jeopardy, just as it is today.
And so were free countries all around the world.
And Golda Meir called up President Nixon
and spoke to Henry Kissinger, who she thought uniquely
understood better about what was happening than
most other people and she
said he said why do we need what do you need
and she said we need planes
American planes so sound familiar and he said
well I'm going to speak to the
president about that she says we have no time
we need them now the Syrians are
coming in from the north there are a hundred
over a hundred thousand
Egypt was in a desert, raining the country with
Sinai, and we need time, but we need American help.
And she said to him, he said, again, I have to
speak to the president.
She said, speak to whoever you want.
He says, are you threatening me?
And she said, that only many diplomats would understand.
She says, I've ordered what every prime
minister in Israel must do regardless of party.
I ordered the order that if Israel is ever in
jeopardy, to tip all the Air Force and the IDF
with nuclear weapons.
She said, I've already made that order. We're
not going down again waiting at bus stations to
take us to the final solution.
Those days will never happen again.
The planes arrived, the battle continued in the
Gulf of Sinai, Sharon was ready to go to Cairo,
to Cairo and the orders came down to stop that
there had been now a negotiated peace
because of the american intervention and
everybody stood by their tanks they cleaned
them up
and in the distance on this particular
afternoon a helicopter landed out in the desert
two people got out one was a woman wearing a
scarf and the other was a security agent in an
open jeep
And they came driving to the tank corps that my
dear friend, who was still very much around,
was standing at attention.
When this jeep arrived, the woman took off her
scarf and was rolled in the air.
She walked over to every one of those kids,
hugged them, kissed them, and thanked them for
their effort.
And I don't think anybody here, notwithstanding
party or anything like that, this is an
American issue and that we have to protect America.
And lest anybody think that we've become too
soft or we don't care as much as we should, but
let them come to understand who the people are
in this room.
I don't know your war, obviously, or very many
of you, but I do know we share the same values.
and it's for that I would ask you just to rise
for one minute before we start the program
as a minute of solidarity with respect to
what's happening and I'm prayer
that this murder end and that justice that true
justice be done
thank you all very much please be seated I have
with respect to this interesting lady
I have, with respect to the materials, I
normally do, but something different occurred.
I came into possession of something very
important that was distributed in 1976, and
it's a document
that is entitled CIA Document Number 1035-960,
and it's really an agency's declaration of
war against the JFK assassination critics. I
don't consider myself a critic, because
I'm not going to give you my opinion about
anything. I'm going to talk about immutable
facts, about what happened. An immutable fact
is I'm here, you're here. That's an immutable
fact. But here's what it says. Keep in mind,
this is from an unelected bureaucratic agency
and CIA, President Truman wrote for history
that the worst thing that he ever did in his
office was permit the morphing of the Office of
OSS, the Office of Strategic Services,
to become the CIA.
Why he puts in the letter?
Because the CIA has its own jurisdictional
understanding of itself, its own foreign policy,
and its own military, with no accountability
worth anything.
And he said, I just wish I had never done it,
and I offer this for our discussion, the
following from the CIA.
To discuss the publicity problem with liaison
and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians
and editors, pointing out that the Warren
Commission made as thorough an investigation
as humanly possible, that the chapters of the
critics are without serious foundation
and that further speculative discussion only
plays into the hands of the opposition.
Point out also that parts of the conspiracy
talk appear propagandist.
Urge them to use their influence to discourage
unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
Part B, to employ propaganda assets, as the
intelligence agency knows, assets, human beings
who are working for them, to employ propaganda
assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.
Book reviews and feature articles are
particularly appropriate for this purpose.
The unclassified attachments to this guidance
should provide useful background material for
passage to assets.
Our play should point out, as applicable, that
the critics are, one, wedded to theories
adopted before the evidence was in, and two,
politically interested, and three, financially interested.
I have not written a book on this subject matter.
It's rare that I ever talk about this subject
matter, but I understood when I was called
out of the blue by the gentleman to my left,
Doreen Wiley, I thought he was serious,
and that the people would be here,
and I thank you all, it's a tremendous crowd.
It's wonderful to see so many people so concerned.
And three, financially interested,
and four, hasty and inaccurate in their research,
and five, infatuated with their own theories.
In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon
phenomenon or criticism, a useful strategy may
be to single out Epstein's theory for
attack, using the attached Flesher Neville
article and Spectator piece for background.
Although Mark Lane's book is much less
convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly
when contested
by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more
difficult to answer as a whole, as one
becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.
Lastly, in private or media discussion not
directed at any particular writer or attacking
publications which may yet be forthcoming,
the following arguments would be useful. And
within that is a statement that came about
During the course of a trial that occurred with
Mark Lane, who was a former New York City State
Assemblyman and was very close to Bobby Kennedy
and the President.
But he was a brilliant lawyer.
Now, to say we differed on political issues is
to put it as mildly as you could possibly put it.
But I came to know him in the course of all
this as someone who was seriously involved in
the search for truth.
He lived and worked in 104th Street and 3rd
Avenue in Manhattan, which is the heart of
Spanish Harlem.
He wanted to be the voice of those people who
had no voice.
And he lived it.
He's not someone who many people appreciate.
And I never thought we would become friendly,
but such is the nature of involvement with
respect to issues that we care about.
And one of the issues we care about dearly is
if our government believes that in some
fashion we are being misled and that we should
not be critics of our government, then we
really have a serious problem before us, don't we?
When I grew up in the third grade in Brooklyn,
let me tell you, the notion of life was to
question in a respectful manner the issues of
the day as we discussed them at home and I am
terribly offended by the notion that the
central intelligence agency would involve an unelected
board of bureaucrats would be so involved in
telling us to keep our mouths shut and that
would definitely definitely involve in
something that we really don't know that much
about and that
in parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be
deliberately generated by communist propagandists
that's quite a comment to make about the
american public for those people who
demand the respect of participation let me tell
you this in the small community where I live
I I served as mayor for two terms and I urged
the people in my community
we had television coverage
I urged the people in my community
to come down to City Hall
because we were going to do standardization
ordinances that
reflected very varying issues
I said
I particularly want people who disagree
with the council
the five member council
and the council
will give you reasons why they may disagree
that is the
nature of what our democracy means to me. And
indeed, many people came down and were
angry. As development goes on, and I mean, when
I come here to Texas, all I see is incredible
development, that this is giant. This is truly
giant. And it's wonderful to see, particularly
in the hotel where I am, and there's a football
field right in the lobby, basically.
But as far as it all goes, the way I got
involved in this was, I got a telephone call
from one
Richard A. Sprague, and the book Cold Country
Killing is about Richard A. Sprague. I didn't
know him when he called me in 1976 in October,
and he said that he had just been named the
chief counsel and chief of staff of the House
Select Committee on Assassinations, and that
he wanted me to be in charge of the Kennedy investigation.
The other investigation was with respect to
Martin Luther King.
And I said, why were you calling in?
I've never met you.
I've never spoken to you.
I don't know about the career you've had, and
I'm just, you know, there are hundreds
of people who could do this.
and he said
I know you
I've checked you out
I said I hope you didn't speak to too many
defense attorneys
and he said
in fact I did as well as judges
and I would very much like you to do this
I didn't know
at that time
that he had just finished
his investigation
into the assassination
of Jock Jabronski, a union, a major union
player who turned reformer after serving in
the United Mine Workers for 35 years, along
with tough Tony, assassin, corrupt Tony Boyle,
now president.
And the killers went up into the house in a
small town about 50 miles south of Pittsburgh.
The three killers went into the bedroom. They
killed Yablonsky, his 25-year-old daughter, and
his wife.
A couple of weeks later, Richard Sprague, who
was chief assistant DA in Philadelphia, was
asked to be special prosecutor in the case.
Dick spent seven years investigating the case,
during which time he found the three killers.
He tried them.
He then found the corrupt union people who
helped hire them, who Boyle never met.
Boyle believed he insulated himself because he
was never involved directly with the killers,
directly with many of the union people who
helped. And because of the discipline of the
United Mine
Workers, if you didn't help Tony Boyle and you
wound up diseased with black lung, he would take
away your hospitalization and your pension. And
the pension was about $115 a month. There was $180
million in the fund of the United Mine Workers
in the bank in D.C., $67 million of which was put
to a private fund by Boyle, which would have
yielded, a non-interest-bearing fund, which
would have yielded $3 million a year to the union.
And the reason for the murders was he feared an
audit of Dublonsky's lawyer, Joe Rao, R-A-U-H,
an incredibly brilliant lawyer who served with
MacArthur in the Philippines, served
this country and serve this country with
respect to various unionization of AFL-CIO and shut
us to think about the kind of corruption that
does in fact exist with respect to so many
unions right now in the country.
But think of how important it is to have a
countervailing voice and hopefully that voice
becomes involved with what is best for the
working people of America and consistent with
our entire economic system so sprague and I got
together and came on to the committee in January
of 1977. it's a select committee because it
only has a two-year life it's not a standing committee
and that is constantly refunded this is a
two-year committee commitment so it would have
been over in
78 on December 31. And so I then meet Sprague,
working together. And during the course of
what happened, the sensitivity that was given
to me about it, when I first started in the
first week by Senator Richard Schweitzer, who
was a senator at the time for the state
of Pennsylvania. He was deemed then to be a liberal
Republican. It was quite a title back then.
He asked me to come to his office.
So I came to his office not expecting anything.
He told me he had a file
he wanted me to read. And I said fine.
And he sat me down on his couch and he told me
what his problems
who are investigating this case.
That is to say, in 1975 from Idaho,
Frank Church, United States Senator,
had a committee investigating alleged wrongdoing
by various committees, intelligence committees,
in the country.
A subcommittee was arranged,
and Senator Richard Schweitzer was chair of the subcommittee,
which was the Executive Intelligence Agency's response
to the assassinations of President Kennedy and
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.
As a result, he filed a report, which I urge
you to get.
It's about a 90-page document about what the
committee's opinion was,
based upon what I call immutable facts, not opinion,
of the state of the intelligence community,
namely with respect to Alan Boas who was hired
to be involved in the Warren Commission and ran
the Warren Commission
and then was fired by JFK in 62 and was
formally headed to CIA.
And the examples that he gave I listened to
because he came up with the knockout punch as I say
out of the park at Yankee Stadium in right field.
I couldn't believe what I'm gonna tell you.
He said, after going over some of the things
I'll mention tonight, he said,
I must tell you that I believe from my investigation
and the investigation of the committee as a whole
that the CIA is responsible for the assassination
of the president.
Well, I saw a plot straight onto the couch.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the
United States Senate.
Because when I went to Washington, we didn't
expect anything to really happen.
My boss in New York was totally apolitical.
District Attorney Frank Hogan.
There were like 800 applications to get into
the office.
And it was totally apolitical.
There was no way on planet Earth I would be
involved in anything that was not otherwise.
And even for this job, Sprague said, some of
the committee want to meet you.
This was before we started, because I met him
with Dick in October of 76.
He finished the Boyle trial in April of 74,
having tried the list of people.
And I said, I was listening to them talk about
what they hoped to find.
And I just went down with Shrave because I
couldn't stay in my office anymore.
I was in charge of the criminal courts. I ran
on Homicide Hero.
I had tried a couple of hundred cases to her
successfully, thank God.
I don't know what the hell I would have done if
some murderer would have beat me in court.
It would be intolerable for me to think I
didn't work hard enough in order to do justice
in the case, because the cases were strong from
an ever-entry point of view.
I had great detectives. They made me look great
in court and otherwise. And it was an issue
that I had to live with.
And the bottom line to all this was that the
whole Schweiker-Spring issue was something that
I really felt I had to tell them about.
Namely, I'm only here because my office is
becoming politicized and it's heartbreaking.
And I'm in charge of the training of the legal staff.
And I just don't feel comfortable being here anymore.
I said, so please understand, I'm not coming
down here to write a book.
I have to make history.
I don't know how after 15 years we're going to
find anything out anyway.
And so here we were.
It was 63 is the murders.
Now here we are in 77 into 78.
and so I said don't hire me
I believe strongly in compromise
we have 300 members
315, 345 members of the House
every one of them can't be an executive
so you will compromise in order to move forward
the calendar, move forward what achievements
you can have that are going to help the
American people
whatever it may be, I said please
I accept that
and I'm very strongly in favor of it understand
that in no way
am I wired
to compromise on a search for truth
someone must have
injected me
when I had that sauce thrown
and I saw the blood of the doctor
with the black bag came
with the hypodermic nail
and gave me a shot of penicillin
that next day
I was all better
this was a situation
where someone must have injected something
into me because of my
entire attitude in the DA's office.
Connie and I would still be
in the DA's office in Manhattan
if my boss hadn't died
as it happened from
cancer suddenly.
And they
said to me, and Sprig was sitting next to me,
and they said to me,
we will not interfere with your investigation.
And Sprague said, they said the same thing to
me, four months later, they collapsed.
They couldn't find any backbone and they just
didn't understand how we could come up with
what we did.
And it's on that note that I wanted to address
some of these issues with you.
And the issues are as follows.
We have this document here that talks about the
notion of propaganda.
I keep reading this and I can't believe it.
Anybody would say this. We're being generated
by communist propagandists.
That wouldn't have been accepted on Ocean
Parkway in Brooklyn where I spent my first 12
years, trust me.
We encourage dissent. We encourage the discussion.
And let the best argument prevail.
that's who we are. We're strong enough to do
that and encourage it. And if the world
doubts it anyway, believe me, you'll find out
soon enough what justice really is all
about. But what happened here is that when
President Kennedy was murdered, his body was
taken to Parkland Hospital, as you may recall.
And at Parkland, the doctors there who were
expert in trauma, Dr. Kent Clark, who is the
surgeon in charge, pronounced JFK dead at
1 p.m.
But what they discovered in their opinion was,
which they believed was immutable, that
the shot that killed the president came from
the front right, which was known as, I call
the stockade fence area. Most people refer to
it as the Noel Hill area. It was to the right
of Zapruder filming with his colleague the
assassination, going down there just to find out
and celebrate the President of the United
States coming down Dealey Plaza on Elm Street.
and that the shot that killed the president is
contained in frame 313.
And the Zaporozhye film has 18.3 frames per second.
Yes, the nature of what happened at that time
was that at frame 313, which we'll see in a moment,
the President's head is blown out
and we see the flare
in color
of that frame 313
and then we see
we go to frame 328
and in frame 328 there's a second
shot against the President in the head
and that's in the Kalmyk area
and in the Kalmyk area
four fragments emerge
The first one is it enlarged the wound at frame 313.
President Kennedy's head snapped forward.
His head snapped forward, not his body.
His head moved throughout the horror of all
this, which was 8.3 seconds.
His head snapped back from the force and he
moved to his left and fell, sank into his
wife's, into Mrs. Kennedy's right shoulder.
He was immobile, his body appeared physically
depressed, and he was, he slumped down.
There are one of the witnesses who I'm going to
talk to you about, who was an AP photographer,
looked at the president as he was photographing
the president in a limo on Elm.
He was on the south side of Elm and close,
about midway down Elm, before the bridge.
And he took a photograph at frame 255.
The reason for that, I mentioned, is there was
no damage done to the interior windshield to
the left of the rearview mirror yet.
So that when the first flurry of shots
finished, there were three shots.
Two of them hit Connolly.
One of them hit Connolly and one of them hit
the president.
FBI and Secret Service said two different
bullets struck them in the back.
After that, that took 2.6 seconds, and then
there was a 4.8 second pause, and as I'm
standing here, the following occurred, and the
witnesses responded to it, who were up on the
railroad bridge, and it was a boom, and they
looked to their left, and they saw a plume of smoke.
and as did the individual in the tower and then
they looked at the president and he was had already
moved in the direction as they described like
someone hit him with a baseball bat
in the right side of his head and then within
seven tenths of a second thereafter
there was a second boom blast and that came
from the rear and hit the president in the coward
and four things happened as I started to say
the first was you can see it as you watch the film
it's very hard to see the 18.3 frames per
second to digest it the process
but that's why I have the exhibits here that
we're going to look at in a moment
so you can see exactly what happened on each of
the frames and the second thing it did was it
It moved his head significantly forward, but
snapped back into his wife's shoulder.
And the third thing it did was a fragment hit
the interior window of the windshield to the
left of the rear view,
and we see a bit of a flare of that shot.
And the fourth thing it did was it hit Governor
Connolly in the right wrist,
and it fractures his axial nerve
and it's cut the tendon
in his right hand
between his thumb and index finger.
He was holding the famous Stetson hat upside down,
meaning the opening was right here
and all you had to do was slip it on.
And of course he drops it
and the experts who testified,
who were totally ignored by the Warren Commission,
said that no one could have that injury sustained
because the nature of the fragment was so
severe and sharp
that if you were hit that way in the Shin, you
would fall down.
So that's why he dropped the hat.
That's why it becomes an evidentiary point of view
because he doesn't drop the hat when he's shot
in the back.
And that back shot becomes very, very important
in the whole case.
in that President Kennedy is shot in the back
on the first slurry that took 2.6 seconds.
He was shot, and as we'll see in a government
picture, that wound, I used to say the bullet
punctured the wound,
The intelligence community, for what it is
worth, has created what they call the one
bullet theory, which I'm sure you know about in
some fashion.
And the reason I mention it at this point is
that it turns out that that bullet that
entered the president, in his back, came in a
17 degree trap in his body. And it becomes
a significant part of what they call the single
bullet theory. Now, why do they have to have
a single bullet theory? The public was very
much concerned about what was going on, about
this investigation, because news flashed out
what people accepted was true, that the CIA
had various people who were involved as
liaisons to the Warren Commission.
And they were significant CIA enablers who
decided what the Warren Commission was going
to do and what it wasn't going to do.
And so they decided to come up with what they
called the single-bullet theory.
My single bullet theory is when the president
was shot, it was five and three-quarter inches
below the neckline.
Interestingly, President Ford, who most people
believed who were on the inside, believed that
he was really doing the work of J. Edgar Hoover,
who believed that the whole assassination was
questioning, was ridiculous.
He said in December of 63, some lone nut killed
a president alone.
Three shots from the back, no one else involved.
And so issues started to arise with respect to credibility.
And so the government comes up with a single
bullet theory.
Now, why is this an issue?
What I'm about to tell you, the government told us.
Again, I'm not giving any opinions here.
That shot was underneath the shoulder blade,
five and three-quarter inches.
It turns out that President fought in his own handwriting
because things got hot after this single bullet
theory nonsense.
Now, he wrote, instead of five and
three-quarter inches below the neckline,
below the shoulder blade, he wrote in that at
the entrance,
It was at the entrance of the collarbone, at
the entrance of the neck.
Think about the difference now.
Ford, in his own handwriting, tends to go
through documents,
this is an extra measure, and says there wasn't
five or three quarters
below the neckline, below the shoulder blade.
No, it was a shock that was at the neckline itself
because here's what happened.
I mentioned that there was a declination of 17
degrees from that wound into the back of the president.
Somehow, somehow, that bullet, this is a single
bullet here, that bullet went up 11 degrees.
And President Kennedy was always seated with
his back up.
He never bent over, and we know that from the film.
And that bullet, according to the single bullet
theory, went up 11 degrees, it exited his
throat, it struck Connolly in the shoulder, it
fractured his rib, it came off, it fractured
the wrist, and it tore the tendon in Connolly's
wrist from the index finger to the thumb.
And then somehow it lands in the left thigh of Connolly.
So that's the single bullet theory that the
American public was supposed to believe in
order for us to realize that the CIA was
protecting our interests.
Well, it didn't work out that way because they
had another problem.
And the other problem very quickly was they
argued that the manhunt called Cannibal Rifle,
which allegedly was Oswald, was the murder weapon.
except the murder weapon was a short circuit in
that it can only fire consecutive shots in 2.3 seconds.
That's because of the manual bolt action and
repeating the action for a second shot, 2.3 seconds.
The problem was Kennedy and Connolly were shot
between 1.9 seconds,
Which means you had to be another shooter.
Do you ever get really fucking serious about
this and then in the morning you wish you
had been the other shooter?
This isn't even a thing.
You can't fire that rifle in more than less
than 2.3 seconds.
They were hit between 1.9 seconds.
The FBI had secret service found in December
that they used 200 bullets struck them.
So the credibility was shaken.
And then the bottom line to it is that they
decided that they would definitely need another test.
And so they decided to come up with some science.
And the science that they came up with was
called Neutron Activation Analysis.
Can't be this, they said.
Keep in mind, this is like a battle going on
between unelected officials and the American public.
Because, theoretically, the government wanted
closure. They're very big on closure.
The American people wanted the truth. We can
handle the truth.
Neutron activation analysis was a scientific
way, they said, of dealing with the following.
That the shots, the fragments that were taken
from Connery's list matched the pristine bullet.
That was Exhibit 399, virtually pristine wood,
meaning it didn't have any indentations on the
head, bone, and so on.
And that, having matched with Exhibit 399, they
said that from JFK's head,
which we'll see, some of the metallic, the
minute metallic fragments right across this
zone above the right ear area,
And we know that those fragments diminish in
distance as we go down that trail, and that
those JFK fragments match two of the large
fragments in the limo, and therefore they are
both capable, all of them are capable of being
fired from the Maverick or Carcano.
Now they forgot about the difficulty of the 2.3 seconds.
And that's the nature of what happened with
respect to neutron activation analysis, except
something extraordinary occurred.
And that is that various experts who went over
neutron activation analysis, the following occurred.
The experts in the field, who work for the
National Academy of Sciences and the National
Research Council, wrote devastating critiques
that NAA, Neutron Activation Analysis, just
simply is invalid.
You can't use it. And these are people from the
National Academy of Sciences.
Well, there were big articles about this, and
the FBI had been using it.
So the FBI asked the National Academy of
Sciences to get involved and get the best
people you can, metallurgical PhDs.
No one thought it important enough to speak to that.
And they didn't.
And the result was that it's invalid.
And so what did the FBI do?
It shut down its lab.
That was the only lab of metallurgy that was
being used.
They shut it down on September 1st, 2005.
And they admonished agents never to refer to it again.
So much for the communists influencing us.
Here we go.
Watch your line.
So, the bottom line to it all is, where do we
go from here?
Where do we go from here?
And the one thing that bothered the wine
recognition people
was that people just didn't believe him.
I don't know if it's going to be anybody else's case.
And so, and of course, because one of the
biggest reasons here is, which I'm sure I'll
bring home to you, one of the biggest reasons
is that the parts of the doctors have been, in
essence, made it clear that the assassination
shot came from the right front.
and they relied upon the science
of what they saw from the injury.
The back of the president's head
was removed
this is a hill.
The Secret Service
said you should have been on the back of the car
to leave it into that conversation.
Look down at the president
as he hit the back of the car
and he said he saw the cell phone.
So the president's head
from the horse's wound
destroyed is where the occipital and the
parietal bones
combine in the back of our head.
And it bothered the hell out of the people on
the Water Commission
who were CIA-oriented.
And they did the following.
You live in this, what I'm about to tell you,
if you're showing your cases.
If you have this evidence in your back pocket,
the question is
on the civil side, just add how many 1-0s on
that ship.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations
was really an attempt to write the back
of what the CIA was on the war invasion.
And they did that.
And here's what they did.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations
was the forensic medical panel report.
Near the end of 78, near the end of the select
committee's life, they decided that they would
form various essays, reports about what they
were investigating and share with the public.
And one of them was the Select Affirmative
Medical Panel report.
And it argued the following.
The doctors in Portland, I believe this was not
something that they were ordered to do per se
by the Congress.
But God only knows who ordered them from the
CIA to do it.
And they said, the Department of Doctors must
be in error.
Because all 26 witnesses at the autopsy in
Bethesda, all 26, at the autopsy,
taking off his hair now and the rest of it.
And they said they never saw
any of the most
of the wound in the back of the person's head.
When I say the most, the back of his head
was missing.
That's pretty good.
At 26, what was this against you?
You said they never saw it. Now,
the truth.
Of the 26, in the back of our pocket are over
20 of those witnesses who not only saw the
wound, who not only saw this false wound,
but in fact
notified the committee
that they sought
the womb through various documentation
and sworn saints
and other memorializations. That
purpose at page 37
so someday when you sit around
and have nothing to do, you don't have to break down
on this account
and you don't have to see who's going way over time
And you'll get page 37 of this report and shake
your head.
But how can they say this?
Where are we?
So that report, and moving forward around here,
is I just want to mention a couple of things here.
Um, about Oswald. There was something about
focusing on Oswald. I never met him. I never
talked to him. I never represented him.
Uh, but the reason I'm here is, in my judgment,
the worst thing we can have in the justice
system is to arrest and charge innocent people.
I've been involved in this on some occasions in
Houston at the Texas College of Law.
On 2017, I was asked to come in and do what I'm
doing now, basically, and I did, and I, um, you
know, questions were asked about the whole
issue of Oswald with various people who had CIA assets.
One of whom was Ruth Payne. She had paid
Oswald's work at the depository six weeks
before the assassination.
She was very friendly with a fellow by the name
of Harry Bird, who owned the depository.
A major candidate. And what was Oswald doing?
In 57, he was a major asset to the CIA, and he
was involved in tracking the CIA spy plane,
which you may remember, Gary Powers was shot
down in a U-2 flight.
And the CIA lied to President Eisenhower when
Khrushchev said, you're violating all of our
treaties with respect to the troops' investigation.
At 30,000 feet, they're going to come and
refrigere them.
So Oswald was then recruited by James Angleton,
who was deemed to be the intel solider.
And what happened was, Angleton believed that a
mole existed in his government.
And they wanted to get this mole.
And so he recruited an officer to say, I am now
in the Russian embassy in Moscow.
I have announced my citizenship, and I have
very specific information.
This is part of the whole thing.
I have very specific information that some of
you are really irrelevant, and I'm prepared to
do business with you.
The multiland did not work.
And so that is pretty much where we want to go.
However, there is a witness I want to mention
to you because the issue arose that the
witnesses on the south side of the home were of
the following.
Three shots fired from the back. One shooter.
That was the magic there. And so in a moment of
maturity, I came across an A.D. photographer.
His name is James Hawkins.
And Hawkins was taking photographs of the limo
for historical purposes.
And I wanted to see them, as well as one of
them, which is Charles Simon.
And, indeed, I did.
And I went over all the material.
and have met him in San Diego, Texas,
but I did not believe he was some kind of agent
for the government making a story to the country.
I said very quickly to Kishore,
when you picked up your legs
as you were going to film the limo,
did you see the president?
He said, yes, I did.
I said, what did you see?
He said, I saw the President immobile,
looking as though his body was totally crushed
and slumbered into his wife's car.
Now, here comes the interesting part.
Now, CBS and the other organizations, it
doesn't even look like it was him.
It was just three shots from the rear, his head
went forward, no one else was there.
But think of what he's saying now.
When he picked up that camera to take a shot of
the limo,
He saw the President slumped, his body
physically depressed, and involved.
The only time we see that, because of the film,
is in the Kennedy shot, with the fourth shot at 2313.
And that's the bottom line. To a credibility,
he didn't know he was taking a shot.
the president actually missed the fourth shot.
When he turned up that camera, it was seven
minutes a second later
when it was the fifth shot.
So, on that note, I think it is important for us
to go right to our exit.
And if anybody wants to pass out or take a moment
to breathe or eat without suddenly taking a
pause here,
does anybody want to take a glass of water
or scotch or anything like that?
I do. So, but I will wait. I will certainly
wait until we were there. So, if we can have
right now the existence.
Dory, are you ready? Okay, here we go. One second.
All right, here we are around the city, and
here is the records building, we have down
tax, and then we have, you know, you make that
left-hand turn, and I'm telling you,
they're going west.
And all kids, there was some guy walking around
this area, and the car passed and went through.
And then there was another fellow in the area.
And that fellow, Charles Grant, had a
five-year-old son. Very interesting person. He
was a .22 Hawk. He came home in the evening.
And he was wounded in the home in the evening.
And the following is what he was saying.
He was sitting there in his area right here.
And he said, I heard the first of all the shots
the President shot in the back, right around
here, in front of him.
And the next shot, I saw the car move down,
right around here at the stockade fence.
And the shot blew the person in his head off.
And then there was another shot.
And that shot zoomed far in.
And that was the equivalent, very much, of what
he had experienced at Pointe Du Hoc, at that moment.
And that's what he first thought he was a Son
of God.
And he thought that was an issue there.
Because he said, what's the sense of that when
I shot him?
The President is dead, his head was gone.
now what I need for a moment here is
I need for one second to sit down
okay let's go to the next one I've got a real
bad angle here this is no good I got to get
down on
there I'm going to get down let me get down
because I want to show you frame the frame of
313 you got it okay there we go all right let's
go to the next one next next next slide
all right now oh lights down a little bit all
right yeah no we're good okay um now in this frame
this leads up to 313 and remember what we're
talking about zap root is film
and there's a reconciliation between acoustics
that came down in 78 in the late early early fall
of 78 and that was very very important in the
confirmation and corroboration of what will
happen here so what happened is you see the
president being shot at 312 basically and you
see his head moving back right up here let's go
to the next one please let me
go back for a second okay go back okay we feel
we look here at the bottom you
see that again that flaring issue which becomes
important at 328 frame 328 but
that is a proof again yet of the shot to
Kennedy's head. Okay next one
please. Okay this is the trajectory of frame
328 which hit the president in the
top of his head in the cowlick and the
fragment, the fragment trajectory. So as
As you can see here, you have the officer, who
I believe is Bobby Hargis there, and this
now is the second shot, seven tenths of a
second after 313, we're at 328.
And again, there were four things that that
shot did in fragmentation.
head moved forward, it enlarged the wound, the
existing wound in 313, and it struck
the interior of the windshield, the limo
windshield, to the left of the rear view
and then it struck Connolly in the wrist. Let's
go to the next one please.
Okay, now you can see at the front, there's
going to be, right there, damage to that window.
Now I had a wonderful conversation with my
buddy back here, right in back of me, Bob
the Great, who's written many, many good books,
please buy them, he's terrific.
can see at 329 the flare that's the shot that
hit the window that's to say the fragment
that hit the window and it continues on because
what happens is president's head at 320 at 328
329 330 move forward as follows at 328 327 328
his head moved forward 1.68 inches
at 328 329 it moved forward 1.91 inches and at
329 330 it went forward 2.85
inches you keep going here and yet you see that
flare now Bob Grodin I cannot
say enough about it's great that he's here
because so many of the people I had
work with was so incredible some not that's
okay not everybody's you know the
baby Garrett put the measure with that tool
please and but they tried hard but
our discussion was he said I said where's the
flare go back up here where's
the flare if there was damage that hit that
window that was to say a major
fragment that looked like an end that had
tremendous action regarding the
fragmentation it wasn't cylindrical smooth and
at Pointe du Hoc I didn't
mention we should be shoved we shot on recon
the night before into Pointe Du
Hoc that cliff that cliff that the Germans were
using to kill our guys and
and we used that to climb up as they were being
shot at.
We lost about 150 precious lives.
So I said to Mr. Robert,
where is the flare?
He said, it's there, you just can't see it.
I said, let me tell you something.
If you think, and you're much smarter than I,
what the hell do I know?
But if you think I'm going to tell the American public,
they can't see the flare, but I know it's there.
I don't want to be at that meeting.
He said, what do you think we should do?
And he is absolute genius with respect to film.
I can't thank him enough.
I truly mean that, Bob.
You know that.
And he said, listen, we can go frame by frame.
And Lo and behold, not giving up what the truth was.
Didn't know whether we would find, but if we
didn't find
that flare that was consistent with the other
flare that we mentioned at 313, then you know
we had a problem. And we would never, ever, and
that goes for Mr. Grodin as well. He's
incredibly talented. Believe me, this is no
pushover here. This was like one-on-one,
you know, Madison Square Garden going to the
basket. So let's go now to the next one, please.
okay here's the famous here is the famous
injury damage done to the interior of the limo
we know it didn't happen in front 255 which was
like approximately 240 on Zachary we know it
didn't happen in the first quarter because at
255 we see no damage and after 255 we hang
immediately going, we're going pretty rapidly
at that point, 18.3 frames per second, we're
going pretty fast into the whole issue here,
and that means that in the first round of
shots, that's the first flurries of three
shots, it never hit that window.
Okay, let's keep going, Sir.
All right, here's a great shot of the president
at 255.
there's no damage to the windshield just so I'm
talking to you about the
president was always sitting up just like I am
right now he got hit his arms
raised but he never crumbled over so that the
bullet that ended at 17 degrees in his
back, five or three quarter inches below the
neckline, and not the standing one, where Ford
did, and rolled out below the neckline and said
he put the neckline in.
Imagine doing that. How many games have they
played in? So, we know at 255 that that call
was clean in essence. And then we move. And
that was the equivalent of perhaps
they have 230, 240, with respect to the sacrum numbers.
So let's go to the next freeze.
Okay, here, you can see right over here,
that's a mom and dad, the Newman family,
they have two children.
They believe they originated over here.
They believe shots were being fired over their head.
This is the Stockton Fence area.
And so they ran down the hill
and wound up here.
Now when we go to the next one,
let's do that now.
And by the way,
Zach Ruter is right over here in this area.
So when you go there,
and he's with his colleague,
the colleague in his office.
And he was dead,
and I couldn't create a record
of him going to see the president.
I'm from Brooklyn. Hey, this is where it
happened, you know. Okay, next, please. Okay,
now you notice this right here. In low
probability, see the cycle here? There were 18
motorcycles that were involved in ignoring the president.
This is Bobby Harkness. He was on Jackie's
side, Mrs. Cainley's side of the car, and he
got hit with bone, blood, and brain from the
explosion that blew out the back of the
president's head.
and he ran
to where he thought the shots were coming from
hence there's this officer right here
and this officer starts his
vehicle right here
and let's go
and that ends it. I'm not cautioning
everybody about this now because
even though Harvey Hargis turns towards the null
the stockade fenced
it doesn't say that the shots
definitely were coming there does it? Why?
Because other people ran there
and he figured maybe they know something
I don't know. But you've got to put that into
the equation on the innate nature of truth.
The traveling didn't happen that way. He had
seen that people were running that way.
Again, why would they be doing that? And the
bottom line was people were doing that because
they heard shots. And here again is the mom and
dad on the grass. Okay, next one please.
This is the car. You're seeing the way we're
aging him. And that's why he moves into the body.
and he sees the cellar bell he didn't talk
about this but he acknowledged all this next week
this is a sake fence behind which most people
who investigated this case were serious
where the shots were fired next one please all
right this is a Mary Mormon photograph
and in the Mary Mormon photograph
this type of shot
took place one
tenth of a second after frame 313.
One tenth
of a second after JFK was hitting the head
above the temple.
And as you can see, he's now moved
to the left, snapped back, and he's
heading to the left. But if you look
carefully at that shot,
there is an anonymous shape
that's right here.
Well, again, another shot of this.
Her camera, everything was done to try and see
what that shade was.
Wouldn't it be interesting to simply say, well,
there was a shade, but it was the guy's head.
Well, if the guy's head was there, there's
another shooter there.
Let's go to the next one, please.
All right, these are memory moments, close-ups.
Now, you can see, and I wish it were clear,
believe me,
But you can see right here, there is a, there's
a shape. It should be all white. See all the
whiteness here? See this? This should be clear
also. And this is the anonymous shape, famous
anonymous shape that Mary Morgan had.
Here it is.
If someone here knows anything about camera design,
I adore your talented guy.
Okay, next please.
Okay, this is a good morning, trust me.
You know, I've tried hundreds of cases,
but every case I've been responsible for investigating,
literally, and trying them to her.
I'm a little hard-edged about this stuff,
because one of the things you have to do
is remove yourself physically from this.
When you look at it initially, it's horrifying.
But what your job is, it's not to be horrified,
it's to figure out where the alien is, how it's
going to come forward, and is it believable?
Next, please.
This is a picture of the back of the
president's head.
This is one of the most important photographs
of evidence.
It's in the National Archives.
There's three of these x-rays.
These are the metallic fragments, the minute
metallic fragments that they claimed matched in
the NAA series of events.
That was invalid, but they still called it
science, but not people who were honest.
And if you started here, this is above the area
of the entry wound.
And what's significant about this, the minute
metallic fragments form from the fragment a
sort of a cloud, and that cloud then forms the
metallic fragments.
So what is important about that?
As we go forward, those fragments get smaller
and smaller.
So if someone were to come in here and shoot me
in the back of my head, I would have no
metallic fragments in the front of my head.
But because we have this, we know the point of
entry, potentially, and the direction that
covered his entire skull.
All kinds of things happened with the CIA. They
gave him a phony back and a head.
They kept the picture for five years, and the
back of his head has no wound.
This is how the president looked with his face,
and the reason I have this in here,
let's look at the next one please.
These two photographs here are photographs
where tests were fired, as it says, at the
Edgewood Arsenal in 1964.
CIA got together and created ten skulls,
genital substances that replicated the skull of
a human.
And they fired from the rear at the same height
of the depository.
The so-called sniper's nest that didn't exist.
And they showed these photographs, and by the
way, all the heads went forward.
The only head that the government claimed went
backward was at 313. And they said, that's a
joke that, you know, sometimes, sometimes, that
heads go backwards when they hang from the back.
So I've got a bunch of photographs with respect
to these kinds of assassination shots and so on.
Not one head ever went back that was shot from
the back. In addition to which, all ten of
these shots that were done, every head went forward.
That is, from the back, hitting the back and
the head, responding, and went forward from the
force. Now, the government had the hoods put to
say, this is exactly what happened to President
Taylor. Go back for a second, please.
this is what
President Chen is the case of
yet again
yet again the sea
on its strikes
with the ferocity
and credibility of the
fifth next please
okay same thing here
see the one bullet there is
he sits five and three quarter inches below
the neckline. Bullet comes out of his throat
and then causes all that damage.
It damages Connelly's wrist, fractures his, I'm sorry,
it damages Connelly's shoulder, fractures his
right rib, exits,
fractures his wrist, and severs a tendon in his
right hand holding
the stetson. Next please. Okay.
This is really, I have this in here because I
wanted to show you what James Hopkins, the photographer
for Saul. This is what he sees when he looks
through that camera at 327, but he misses
it. He misses that shot because he's trying to
focus on the limo and get a picture of
the president. And you can see as the president
is moving downward, he's reacting to the
shot. And that's his head. Yeah, it's not the
body doing it. It's his head. The force
was banging them ferociously, violently, back
and to the left.
And I know the other kicker here.
CIA does a report in September of 64 about what
their findings were.
Not one word about Frame 313.
Not one word about the violent snapback of the
president's head.
Next, please.
there, right here
is the wound
I'm sorry, right here is the wound
it's five and three quarters inches
and our friend Connelly
or Ford rather
puts down neck
it wasn't this
that wound was up here
so this is a government
incident by the way
an autopsy
And this was the wound that they claimed came
in at 17 degrees in a downward track.
And then it went up 11 degrees.
How? Would someone tell us how that happened?
The president didn't move in any direction. His
shoulders were back.
And then he comes out of the trailer and does
all that damage. I think that's it. How many do
we have now? Okay, this is a great one. Number
one, this is about 57. Just keep in mind the
government says there's no damage here to the
pristine bullet, the virtual pristine bullet,
which is called Commissioned Exhibit C.E.-399.
And here it is, right here.
Looks pristine, right?
Pick up the diamond, I'll set it here.
And pick kindly in the right shoulder,
fracture his rib, that comes into play here.
And then it goes under again,
and fractures the wrist, that comes into play.
And so there's that tension in his right hand
between thumb and index finger.
So let's go here.
Here are two wads of cotton that was just test fired.
Here is the bullet, which is what the bullet
looked like after it broke a Goat's rib.
To me, it's not that deformed.
But here's the killer.
Number five broke a cadaver's radius, the
wrist, a body's wrist.
Look at the damage there.
That was the wrist.
This is a pristine moment. And the government
ends this out to say there's no real damage.
What government is saying that? Who's listening?
I think that does it. Does it?
Oh, I'm sorry. Please sit down.
You're here for the whole show. We're almost done.
This was a photograph of a drawing that was
done by Robin McClellan, who was one of the
Parkland doctors.
This was his impression of what he saw.
Can you imagine a Parkland doctor seeing
something like this, and someone said, look at
26 people who said there was no wound.
It's like talking to a witness, God forbid, has
no arm.
Is that something you can make up?
For what?
Why? And could you ever forget?
This is where it occurred.
At the coronary artery zone in the occipital area.
That's the back of his head. That's visit.
Dr. Robert McClellan, Parkland Doctors.
We can leave here saying thank God for the
Parkland Doctors.
They saved the truth.
And on that note, you can carry my body out of here.
God bless you all.
Thank you.
I've got a lot to ask you. First of all, that
was fantastic. Thank you so much for being here.
I don't need anything else.
So a couple things I want to get on record here
with you.
One, you mentioned the committee, that you had
the full support.
and then I want to just confirm, yes or no,
that you and Mr. Sprague felt like you did not
have their support.
Is that correct?
I'm sorry, we didn't have which report?
The committee's.
No, as far as that goes, right.
All right, and did you and Mr. Sprague feel
like the CIA was responsive to your request or unresponsive?
They were unresponsive.
They did exactly like Richard Schweiker,
Senator Schweiker said, what the CIA will do is
wear you down.
They won't respond to things you want, and
they'll just keep doing the same thing.
And so that's part of what happened.
In fact, that's exactly what happened.
One of the things I want to get on record is
David Atlee Phillips was the head of Western
Operations, Western Hemisphere, number three
guy in the CIA.
Third ranking member of the House in charge of
Western Hemispheric Operations, David Phillips.
For us researchers, there was a guy, a handler
of Oswald named Maurice Bishop,
and we really weren't able to kind of confirm
that until the 90s.
However, you confirmed that while working on
the House Select Committee of Assassinations,
which is really important.
Can you tell us about that story?
Well, what happened is a similar story with Bob
Brodin. I was always surprised
that David Phillips had a Nom de Guerre. I
mean, who was he trying to hide from?
Every time you met him, he would say, I'm the
third ranking member of the CIA and
I'm in charge of Western Hemispheric Operations.
Every time. I get it.
You know, it's like, I don't want to embarrass
the guy. How many times can you say it?
I'm the third ranking member of the CIA and in
charge of Western Hemispheric
operations a third member the third most
powerful member bottom line to get move
on quickly there was a detective who worked
with me who was a brother of mine
Detective Cliff thing he lived in Harlem all
his life on 150th Street in Broadway
a dangerous area raised his two children there
went to school there and
he worked with me and basically moved into our
apartment because we were
together every day for several years and uh
the the the issue what we your your issue with
him I'm sorry so what what was that
was happening was detective Fenton who was the
leading detective in the city he
was in charge of everything for 59th Street up
until the end of Manhattan he
had friends on the scene in the CIA and he
wanted to get as much information on
David Phillips and Maurice Bishop I didn't know
was a number there at the
time and he wanted to get as much information
as he could so they were
sending us information they didn't know and
everywhere it seemed to me Bishop
was third-ranking member to CIA in charge of us
a hemisphere operation was
Maurice Bishop and then it dawned on me I said
Cliff one night at 3 in the
morning I called him up I said I think I know
who Bishop is and who is he
I'm sorry I think I know who Maurice Bishop is
yes who is he I said it's
David Phillips he said why do you say that I
went through everything I said
put aside it all though about them being in the
same place all the time this is a
chess piece and he's the third most powerful
person in the CIA and that's
why his name is Bishop and it turned out that's
exactly what happened Maurice
Bishop and one of the things I didn't mention
was you just reminded me of I
was shown a film a very heavy film and who was
Maurice Bishop with with his arm
around them outside a military post in Clinton
Louisiana an army hold where
there were planes there's like a separate Air
Force here it's not an
American Air Force that is to say you know us
air or whatever and he has his
arm around Bishop has his arm around Lee Harvey
Oswald who else is in that film
there was another individual in the film I Bob
Groden we know who he's on all
these magazines for being the real man with the
weapon and I just can't
remember his name was it David Ferry not David
Ferry no no it's a much more big
guy cat yeah character guy you know who's
selling camel cigarettes or
something David Morales maybe who David Morales
no I'm not doesn't ring the bell
all right look back on David Phillips one more
thing I want to get on the
record on yeah Oswald Mexico we've talked a
little bit in here about it but
not much about the CIA setting him up and
saying he's visiting I'm glad you
meant this is I want you this is really
important as a chance I want you to get
this on the record yeah well I was fooling
around with all my little things
which I never use in court but I I have so much
respect for all of you I want to
sure I covered it on August the first 63 a
person identified himself as Lee
Henry Oswald went into the embassy in Mexico
City and had a telephone
conversation with someone in the Cuban embassy
and said he wanted to go to
Havana and he wanted to go to Cuba I'm sorry I
want to go to
Cuba once go to Russia wanted to go to the
Kremlin and he said his name is Lee
Henry Oswald well that's one hell of a way to
cover yourself don't you think
you know he really means Lee Harvey Oswald
there was Lee Henry Oswald's
probably the same guy right no he believed he
was told to be Lee Henry Oswald the CIA
thought so much of this plan for whatever
they're doing it sent a
universal telex to supervisorial personnel in
the CIA worldwide but on it
was Lee Henry Oswald and the picture of this
person who was Lee Henry Oswald now
here's a kicker to this the CIA knew that once
this thing went out they made
mistake they wanted to be Lee Harvey Oswald for
various reasons maybe this
was a precursor if indeed Oswald was a killer
that he look he already had
communist leanings and all the rest of that but
they have Lee Henry Oswald with
the guy's photo and a description so my
question which I am still asking which I
never got an answer to which further the
frustration between Sprague me together
and the committee was what was the reason
where's the rational reason to be
involved with Lee Henry Oswald but really Lee
Harvey Oswald it was August
some six seven weeks before the assassination
we know that Ruth Payne
from her friend who owned the depository Harry
Byrd got him got him a job there
Oswald the job six weeks before the
assassination what a coincidence but
again that is not the kind of historical fact
we want to get into other than a
reporting not saying this is exactly what the
situation is one way or the
other so that's the bottom line on the August
1st date why didn't they correct
it and send out a Lee Harvey Oswald one how
hard would that be and or what was
the reason the inducing cause to be involved
with Lee Harvey Oswald on
August 1st tell me about the meeting of
Phillips walking out when you are
questioning I when Dick Sprague came to and by
the way Dick Sprague is one of
these rare incredible brilliant people I was
trained when I went to the DA's
office right out of law school two or three of
the best who ever served in
that office trained me tutored me mentored me
said like hey what am I
gonna do with this guy and so what I did was
you know I was trained by these
people I tried hundreds of cases so the
question arises what was the the bottom
line on on the on the David Phillips on what
David Phillips you're questioning
David David Atlee Phillips maybe put some
evidence in front so Dick question
Atlee Phillips in December in December of 76
right as we were coming down I got
there January 1 77 and Phillips said and Dick
wanted at the tape of that
conversation of the Lee Henry Oswald
conversation and he said well we don't
have it because we recycle our tapes every six
or seven days this is an
oversight committee to give you a blank check
you fill in the zeros if you want
to CIA hold here well I then got hold of a no
big deal I got hold of a J Edgar
Hoover memo dated dated November 22nd November
23rd 63 the assassination day
and the day thereafter and it said that J Edgar
Hoover's people that J Edgar
Hoover who wrote this memo is his seven agents
who was quit who were questioning
Oswald for 17 hours on the Friday of the
assassination on the 22nd they they
they claim that in fact that this Oswald you
know we have this memo on
him saying that my Asians have listened to the
tape well how can they listen to
the tape if the CIA was telling us the truth
that it was recycled every six or
seven days starting on 8-1 so by 8-10 8-15 the
tape was recycled they said so
So I called up David Phillips, his lawyer,
I asked him to come down,
I told him exactly why I wanted to question him,
and I asked him, where's the tape?
He said exactly what he said to Sprague,
that the tape was recycled.
I said, is that so?
He says, yeah, I said, you know, you're under oath.
And there was another person, Helms,
Richard Helms, who had lied to the Congress,
formerly head of the CIA, and he was prosecuted.
And I handed him the memo, the Hoover memo.
saying that they they had the tape on November
22nd and 23rd and the voice on
the tape was not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald
and he read that he read it he
folded it up Mr. Phillips and he walked out of
the room to this day when I
And I mentioned this in, I believe, it might
have been at Duquesne University.
Some kid who was hired by the person who
succeeded me, he just got out of law school.
And the person who succeeded me was responsible
in large measure for what I read to you with
page 37.
All those witnesses who never saw it, they did
see it because they said they saw it.
And the bottom line to it all on this is where
do we go from here because a lawyer who worked
with Mr. Blakey who succeeded me had just
gotten out of law school.
one knew what I'm about to tell you this guy
question because Blakey wanted him
to guys had a law school and he wanted him to
be questioned by this fellow and
this fellow questions him in the late summer of
78 I'm trying to get that
transcript because there's no doubt in my mind
this is sheer conjecture that he
was given an out on being prosecuted because of
what he said to Sprague and me.
And so who does he attack? Me. Why? Because I
never ordered the transcripts. I left
in March. Who knew we would have this, you
know, what happened? All this evidence.
And I stayed because Lou Stokes asked me to
wait for the transition. I never
ordered the transcript. So now, allegedly, they
can't find the transcript and this
This guy's running around.
He's not running around anymore.
I put the word out.
I want to see him, and I want to see what the
questions and answers were on Phillips
at the end, at 78, at the end of that summer.
And by the way, the very first thing on this
whole issue of who Bishop was, second, third
ranking member of the CIA and the rest of that.
The first time I ever met Judith with a Y,
Judith with a Y Baker,
was in 1217, the day after on Friday, November 17th.
November 16th, we were in Houston at the
College of Law,
the South, what is it, the Southwest College of Law,
the South College of Law in Houston.
Am I saying it wrong?
Yeah, South Texas.
Christ, Omani, how dumb can you be?
Yeah, the South Texas College of Law in Houston.
And Altuve is one of my favorite all-time ballplayers.
That's all I have to tell you.
Anyway, so that's basically the whole story thematically.
and uh all right a couple things right quick
all right so we will get back to David Atlee Phillips
in the trial you never heard about okay all
right uh but I want I'm sorry we'll go back
sorry I left
off with something radically standing there so
the first time I meet Judith she comes over to
me and
says you know what Lee always said to me they
did everything with respect to chess moves
you remember that she was about to throw me off
the stage because I took up all my time and I was
just saying you can't take me off the stage
because I'm about to tell you that Lee Harvey
oswald whoever he may have done that or not
done could not have killed the president why he
was not
at the stockade fence take the government at
their word he was in a sniper's nest window
maybe who
knows what he was doing that's why I urge you
to make your own
give your own interpretation to it from the
literature of people who are very very talented
and and very very honest as far as I'm
concerned many of them are
and uh so that was my very very early introduction
to Judith Baker God bless her one more thing uh well
real quick on Judith you mentioned this film
earlier what this film earlier that you had seen
uh uh who was in the film yeah the training
film that you'd watch remember
you saw this training film well that might have
been yesterday when I was here I'm not quite sure
no no no no oh and h at the hsca you saw this
training film that oswald was in
right that's correct oswald okay that's because
Bishop had his arm around him and then that film
was taken and stolen and no one's ever seen it
since that's right okay then when you met Judith
did you you my understanding from her and you
is the one of the ways that you verified
her story was she had seen this the film being
put together in 1963 in the summer
originally and you'd confirm some questions
about the film with her well
you're going way back on me here I that film
was shown to me I think I forget to
watch McCall at the University and DC what was
that Georgetown exactly it was
shown to me at Georgetown and when when Patty
and I left Washington I was
brought home by one of the assistants there who
was very very knee-deep in the
political world she drove me home we I put my
stuff in the house in the
playroom area if you will three steps below the
kitchen and you know on a
shelf and had my books and things like that
Patty and I went to visit came to California to visit
her folks and when we returned every file I had
was taken nothing else was disturbed
that's the game that's being played so as far
as what you just said I cannot verify because
I just don't recall it I did recall going over
with Jude for sure but that's as far as I can go
Were you or Richard Sprague's homes ever bugged? Bugged?
Were your homes ever bugged during HSCA?
Your homes bugged wiretapping? Yes.
Unfortunately, Dick had reason to believe from
his investigation with respect to Tony Boyle.
He had reason to believe that we were being bugged.
So, without even telling me, he hired his own
group and, you know, even paranoids, they
say, have enemies, so he was kind of cautious
about all this and our homes were bugged and
were being followed.
And there are various examples I can give you,
but it's not necessary and that made
him close in the investigation for him, me, and
Detective Clifton and that's what happened
here and and the oddity of all this is when I I
needed we were very close to moving in on the
whole CIA aspect of all this the stuff they did
some of which I mentioned I could go on with that
it's shocking but we were very close to get
that immutable facts and so I went to see Lou Stokes
with the subpoenas and explained to him
everything including the 8-1 issue and I said
he kept
staring at me like so and I was across the
table from him and I always liked Lou because
he was
not an ideologue he was a defense attorney in
Cleveland and his brother wanted to get a federal
contract for a seat and that's how Lou goes to
Congress he tells me he'll be there for two terms
he lasted you know for 30 years and uh yeah
what are you going to say so all right so question
in your opinion okay not not fact in your
professional opinion as an expert at what you do
if you and Richard Sprague had not resigned and
you had stayed and you'd have been able to track
the evidence where it went where do you think
it would have gone well here we are you know I just
didn't finish what I was saying for a moment
which is typical and I I said to Lou you know
we need
need these subpoenas we're there but I'm not
going to go around saying the CIA
did anything unless I get this corroboration
it's there they wrote
about this stuff you know the stuff I read to
you here that's how brazen they
are so he looked at me and he said with a great
twang how he has a twang coming
out of Cleveland I'll never know and he said
Bob the majority is not going to
to give you the subpoenas."
I said, Lou, why'd you hire me?
I told you not to do it.
And he said, Bob, the majority never figured you
and Swig would find a goddamn thing.
He says, what are you going to do now?
This was his side table, you know, the one that
goes into his.
I packed my things up very quickly and I looked
him I said Lou as of right now I resigned you
have my resignation he said
I thought you say that and I get up to leave
and as I get to the door I turn
around and say does this also apply to Richard
a spray who's a lion he makes me
looked like a little kid by the crib I love him
dearly I urge you to read that book because if
you want to read that book and know what
prosecutors go through I wrote it from his
eyes and what they go through in a case that
took seven years and it wasn't all these
retrial things
it comes down to certain things I won't mention
for surprise element but you know this this was
really serious stuff and he said to me what are
you doing now I said well you
know I'm back at the house and I'm trying to
figure out how all this
happened and you know and he said stay there
I'm driving down right now five
hours later he came demanded a meeting with
members of the community and had
some very fascinating things to say to them so
had we stayed the question is
how staying wasn't the issue the staying as
you're mentioning was their
cooperation and going forward what they ordered
and the reason why I never had
press conferences because the next day I had a
staff meeting and I told the staff
I'm leaving and Sprague and Dick is leaving and
the reason for it is I can't
trust the committee so very good people there
said Bob if you're leaving why
should we leave I said because they lied to me
and this is not my committee it's
there it's the Congress's committee I can't go
around and have them you know
the routine you see all the time a press
conference here if only I had stayed we
would have discovered you know all this kind of
stuff going on because we're
superheroes to the contrary it's only when
you're doing this all the time you
realize how vulnerable you are and so that's
what happened I urged everyone to
stay try and search for truth but I just want
you to know the reason why we're
leaving and that's that was the end of the
story well I'm sure you never
dreamed that when you did that that day 53
years later a roomful of people would
admire and appreciate you standing up for
America so Thank youNone
thank you maybe a few questions
any questions
oh this could be a hard one where's the uh uh
yeah here we go
need a microphone
not so much of a question
as a statement
when Bob was still there
at the HSCA
he called me into his office one day
I remember it
he was sitting back, his feet were up on the desk
and he said Rob
he says you're right, you're all right
he says
this was a conspiracy
and it goes to the highest level of government.
I never forgot that.
Never forgot it.
So thank you for all the years
and all the honesty and integrity.
You're a great man.
Thank you for sharing that.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
You were wonderful to come to Dallas, Texas.
You're off the hot seat.
Just a reminder, if you would like to purchase
the book and get it signed by Mr. Tannenbaum,
please exit through this door and go down the
hallway that way.
Thank you for being here tonight.