>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that
Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
John<<
No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could not have known about the call because he was not present during Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details and who made it are not clear.
"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House telephone calls to the operating room.
"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar event.
She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet,
that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he bothered to check.
"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both Bartlett and Williams recalled?
Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of the evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book says he answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed the caller could not have been the new president.
No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call, whether on LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such an event.
Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day, or Bartlett's report, nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call from LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital collection, copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National Archives.
Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself as LBJ? Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
If someone has new information about these questions I would very much like to see it.
-- Gary Mack Archivist The Sixth Floor Museum
In article <6vuplk$...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> >>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that > Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
> What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
> John<<
> No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to > back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to > McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
> On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. > Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was > received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could > not have known about the call because he was not present during > Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
> "Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details > and who made it are not clear.
> "The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was > an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. > Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House > telephone calls to the operating room.
> "I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White > House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of > Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the > oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who > revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
> Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that > Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White > House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one > else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not > Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally > for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he > happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who > identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone > operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas > Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, > Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar > event.
> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, > that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he > bothered to check.
> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice > who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the > operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate > anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two > percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with > another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually > corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
> But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both > Bartlett and Williams recalled?
> Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of the > evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
> Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book says he answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed the caller could not have been the new president.
No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call, whether on LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such an event.
Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day, or Bartlett's report, nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call from LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital collection, copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National Archives.
Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself as LBJ? Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
If someone has new information about these questions I would very much like to see it.
-- Gary Mack Archivist The Sixth Floor Museum
In article <6vuplk$...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> >>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that > Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
> What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
> John<<
> No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to > back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to > McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
> On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. > Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was > received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could > not have known about the call because he was not present during > Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
> "Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details > and who made it are not clear.
> "The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was > an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. > Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House > telephone calls to the operating room.
> "I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White > House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of > Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the > oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who > revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
> Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that > Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White > House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one > else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not > Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally > for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he > happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who > identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone > operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas > Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, > Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar > event.
> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, > that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he > bothered to check.
> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice > who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the > operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate > anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two > percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with > another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually > corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
> But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both > Bartlett and Williams recalled?
> Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of the > evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
> Gary
-- Gary Mack Archivist The Sixth Floor Museum
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On 13 Oct 1998 05:49:40 GMT, gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
>McA wrote, inter alia:
>>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that >Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
>What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
>John<<
>No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to >back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to >McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
The NEW YORK TIMES interview with Williams is discussed on my site. It's obvious that if it really had been LBJ, that Williams would have remembered that, and not some vague "call from the White House."
>On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. >Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was >received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could >not have known about the call because he was not present during >Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details >and who made it are not clear.
>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was >an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. >Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House >telephone calls to the operating room.
>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White >House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of >Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the >oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who >revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that
>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one >else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not >Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
Where did the "no one else" statement come from?
>Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally >for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he >happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who >identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone >operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas >Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, >Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar >event.
>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, >that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he >bothered to check.
OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
Where are they?
>"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice >who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the >operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate >anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two >percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with >another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually >corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
In <6vvupc$ul...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
>A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book says he >answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed the caller >could not have been the new president.
>No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call, whether on >LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such an >event.
>Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day,
Where are Crenshaw's contemporaneous accounts of the day Oswald was treated. Are there such things?
or Bartlett's report,
Bartlett wrote the Dallas Morning News herself. What? Was she conspiring to tell a lie? Make a fool of herself?
>nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call from >LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital collection, >copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National >Archives.
How would the absence of such a report prove no call came in?
>Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself as LBJ? >Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available >documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
>If someone has new information about these questions I would very much like to >see it.
Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him? If it did not, what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
>> On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. >> Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was >> received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could >> not have known about the call because he was not present during >> Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>> "Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details >> and who made it are not clear.
>> "The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was >> an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. >> Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House >> telephone calls to the operating room.
>> "I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White >> House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of >> Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the >> oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who >> revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>> Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that >> Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White >> House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one >> else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not >> Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally >> for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he >> happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who >> identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone >> operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas >> Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, >> Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar >> event.
>> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, >> that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he >> bothered to check.
>> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice >> who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the >> operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate >> anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two >> percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with >> another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually >> corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
>> But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both >> Bartlett and Williams recalled?
>> Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of the >> evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
>On 13 Oct 1998 05:49:40 GMT, gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
>>McA wrote, inter alia:
>>>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that >>Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
>>What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
>>John<<
>>No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to >>back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to >>McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
>The NEW YORK TIMES interview with Williams is discussed on my site. >It's obvious that if it really had been LBJ, that Williams would have >remembered that, and not some vague "call from the White House."
>>On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr. >>Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was >>received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could >>not have known about the call because he was not present during >>Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details >>and who made it are not clear.
>>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was >>an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. >>Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House >>telephone calls to the operating room.
>>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White >>House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of >>Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the >>oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who >>revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one >>else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not >>Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>Where did the "no one else" statement come from?
"No one else" has come forward to admit to having taken the call the White House that BOTH chief operator, Phyllis Bartlett recalled, and Williams recalled. If NOT Crenshaw, then who was it? Given the notoriety Crenshaw's claim made, surely if someone other than Crenshaw took the call, we'd have heard of it by now!
>>Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally >>for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he >>happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who >>identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>>Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone >>operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas >>Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, >>Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar >>event.
>>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet, >>that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he >>bothered to check.
>OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
>Where are they?
>>"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice >>who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the >>operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>>I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate >>anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two >>percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with >>another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually >>corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
> In <6vvupc$ul...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book > says he > >answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed > the caller > >could not have been the new president.
> >No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call, > whether on > >LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such > an > >event.
> >Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day, > Where are Crenshaw's contemporaneous accounts of the day Oswald was > treated. Are there such things?
> or Bartlett's report,
> Bartlett wrote the Dallas Morning News herself. What? Was she > conspiring to tell a lie? Make a fool of herself?
Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington. They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call > from > >LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital > collection, > >copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National > >Archives.
> How would the absence of such a report prove no call came in?
The president calls and no one cares or notices? I don't think so.
> >Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself > as LBJ? > >Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available > >documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
> >If someone has new information about these questions I would very much > like to > >see it.
> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you > called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone in Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
> If it did not, > what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett > reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently > admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ called. I do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not aware of a call from Washington, either.
> >> On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, > Dr. > >> Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call > was > >> received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could > >> not have known about the call because he was not present during > >> Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
> >> "Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the > details > >> and who made it are not clear.
> >> "The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, > was > >> an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, > Dr. > >> Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House > >> telephone calls to the operating room.
> >> "I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the > White > >> House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status > of > >> Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the > >> oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else > who > >> revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
> >> Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or > that > >> Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White > >> House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one > >> else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not > >> Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
> >> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called > personally > >> for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he > >> happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who > >> identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
> >> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone > >> operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the > Dallas > >> Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim, > >> Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar > >> event.
> >> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward > yet, > >> that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he > >> bothered to check.
> >> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice > >> who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the > >> operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
> >> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd > appreciate > >> anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two > >> percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with > >> another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually > >> corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
> >> But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both > >> Bartlett and Williams recalled?
> >> Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of > the > >> evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
> >> Gary
-- Gary Mack Archivist The Sixth Floor Museum
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>>On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, >Dr. >>>Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was >>>received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could >>>not have known about the call because he was not present during >>>Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>>>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the >details >>>and who made it are not clear.
>>>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was >>>an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr. >>>Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House >>>telephone calls to the operating room.
>>>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the >White >>>House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status >of >>>Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the >>>oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who >>>revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>>>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one >>>else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not >>>Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>>Where did the "no one else" statement come from?
>"No one else" has come forward to admit to having taken the call the >White House that BOTH chief operator, Phyllis Bartlett recalled, and >Williams recalled. If NOT Crenshaw, then who was it?
You haven't caught on yet. *Nobody* took a call from LBJ. Not Crenshaw, and not anybody else.
I don't doubt that somebody from the White House may have called, but it wasn't LBJ.
>Given the >notoriety Crenshaw's claim made, surely if someone other than Crenshaw >took the call, we'd have heard of it by now!
Gary, there was no "call" -- at least not a call from LBJ himself.
>>>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward >yet, >>>that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he >>>bothered to check.
>>OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
>>Where are they?
Gary, you didn't answer this. What about the "other witnesses" who are going to "come forward?"
Lurkers might want to check the following page on Crenshaw:
In <3626c068.13351...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> 6489mcada...@vms.csd.mu.edu
(John McAdams) writes:
Scoffingly, McA writes: >He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the head" witness.
>.John
O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
KEMP CLARK, MD:
Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.
In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)
Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)
In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.
On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."
AND CRENSHAW:
CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)
The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead.
McAdams fails to mention that Crenshaw is but one of over 20 witnesses at Parkland I cited. He also fails to mention how well Crenshaw's description agrees with the overwhelming majority. Not too shabby for an "unreliable" guy like Crenshaw, 'eh?
And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the head skull defect.
In <70606o$7s...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
>Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington. >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett and Crenshaw?
>> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you >> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
>Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone in >Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
>> If it did not, >> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett >> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently >> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
>I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ called. I >do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not >aware of a call from Washington, either.
Wasn't it Peters who wrote a letter that is published in Groden and Livingstone's "High Treason" in which he put an arrow into the middle of the defect McClelland drew at the lower, right-rear portion of a skull to indicate the location of the skull defect? (Yes, it was.) And wasn't it the same Peters who later, and without explanation, suddenly changed his mind on where it was? (Yes, it was. He indicated a much higher position on a skull directly to me during a presentation he made on the JFK case in a San Francisco speech I attended. Quite amusing, really.) And have you asked him about why his version of JFK's skull wound has wandered over the years? And are we all not Posner acolytes, who embrace his dictum that one should place greatest faith in a witness' earliest recollection? (We're not?) And so should we now believe EVERYTHING Peters says, especially when it contradicts what he's said before? (_ _ _ _ - fill in blanks.)
Well it was Bill Hamley, I believe, who mentioned Peters. Perhaps he (or whoever it was) will chime in.
Just before the ARRB closed down we were told that they did indeed conduct a group interview of the Parkland doctors (I heard that a total of at least five depositions were taken in a group session by Jeremy Gunn).
Does anyone know when these will be released?-------------------------------Vern
>Just before the ARRB closed down we were told that they did indeed >conduct a group interview of the Parkland doctors (I heard that a total >of at least five depositions were taken in a group session by Jeremy >Gunn).
>Does anyone know when these will be >released?-------------------------------Vern
From what I've seen, most of these folks re-canted many years ago from their original statements and observations. I don't believe it was a collective re-consideration of their impressions. I firmly believe they were gotten to. IF... depositions were taken that would reflect their original comments and observations, expect their release sometime after the white-out dries.
In article <706n64$...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> In <70606o$7s...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that > >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we > >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else > >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from > Washington. > >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett > and Crenshaw?
Crenshaw did not write a report covering 11/22, but he did write one for 11/24, which does not mention a telephone call from anyone. Bartlett wrote a report covering her entire weekend and so did other switchboard operators - none referred to a call from LBJ or from Washington. You'd think someone there would have made a contemporaneous mention of such an event, especially in light of the minor events they did write about.
> >> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you > >> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
> >Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone > in > >Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
> And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no > contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by > Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the > comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
Reading Crenshaw's book, one gets a sense there was great urgency in the caller's voice, so much so that a critical operation was interrupted so someone in the room could take a call which became the pithy "How's he doing?" In the real world, at least one of the two operators who handled "the" call would most likely refer to it in her report of important things she saw and did that day. But I guess one can also say "Hey, they forgot."
> >> If it did not, > >> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett > >> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently > >> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
> >I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ > called. I > >do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not > >aware of a call from Washington, either.
> Wasn't it Peters who wrote a letter that is published in Groden and > Livingstone's "High Treason" in which he put an arrow into the middle > of the defect McClelland drew at the lower, right-rear portion of a > skull to indicate the location of the skull defect? (Yes, it was.) > And wasn't it the same Peters who later, and without explanation, > suddenly changed his mind on where it was? (Yes, it was. He indicated a > much higher position on a skull directly to me during a presentation he > made on the JFK case in a San Francisco speech I attended. Quite > amusing, really.) > And have you asked him about why his version of JFK's skull wound has > wandered over the years? > And are we all not Posner acolytes, who embrace his dictum that one > should place greatest faith in a witness' earliest recollection? (We're > not?) > And so should we now believe EVERYTHING Peters says, especially when it > contradicts what he's said before? (_ _ _ _ - fill in blanks.)
> Well it was Bill Hamley, I believe, who mentioned Peters. Perhaps he > (or whoever it was) will chime in.
Gary, calm down. I have no problem with Parkland-Bethesda discrepancy discussions. It is a real problem. What possible relation does Peters' account of Kennedy's wounds have to do with whether or not Crenshaw's claim of a call from LBJ is factual?
All I pointed out was the TOTAL lack of contemporaneous corroboration for the LBJ phone call story and impressive information that he could not have made such a call.
At the very least, the doctor in the opeating room whom Crenshaw supposedly told, Tom Shires, refused to publicly support his former colleague's story. He declined comment to me and to others who tried. And Shires was Crenshaw's mentor!
-- Gary Mack Archivist The Sixth Floor Museum
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <706n64$...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> In <70606o$7s...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that > >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we > >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else > >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from > Washington. > >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett > and Crenshaw?
Gary:
What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually the most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation? What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or something else?
I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important "facts" which are claimed for the first time many years after an event, ESPECIALLY when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never mentioned such "facts."
Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been mentioned almost from day one.
Rick
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the >head" witness.
>O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of >neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
> KEMP CLARK, MD:
>Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an > undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland >described the > President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the >skull... Through the head > wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound >in the right > occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was >occurring... There was > considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and >cerebellar tissue were > extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
[Gary's usual "back of the head" witnesses snipped.]
>And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw >description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
Let's examine that logic a bit.
You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same "back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that all the buffs believe.
Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could* have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
How about explaining his story about the "small throat wound?" You know, the one he "saw" that had to have been from a frontal shot.
But he didn't *enter* the ER until the trachestomy was underway, and the original wound obliterated. So where did he get it, if he didn't see it?
>You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both >those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA >only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the >head skull defect.
This is hard to respond to since "back" could mean simply "posterior," and the wound was mostly posterior. Gary *interprets* all the witnesses as saying the back of the head was blown out.
>>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the >head" witness.
>O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of >neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
> KEMP CLARK, MD:
>Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an > undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland >described the > President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the >skull... Through the head > wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound >in the right > occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was >occurring... There was > considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and >cerebellar tissue were > extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
[Gary's usual "back of the head" witnesses snipped.]
>And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw >description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
Let's examine that logic a bit.
You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same "back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that all the buffs believe.
Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could* have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
How about explaining his story about the "small throat wound?" You know, the one he "saw" that had to have been from a frontal shot.
But he didn't *enter* the ER until the trachestomy was underway, and the original wound obliterated. So where did he get it, if he didn't see it?
>You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both >those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA >only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the >head skull defect.
This is hard to respond to since "back" could mean simply "posterior," and the wound was mostly posterior. Gary *interprets* all the witnesses as saying the back of the head was blown out.
>> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that >> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we >> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else >> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from >> Washington. >> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
>> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett >> and Crenshaw?
>Gary:
>What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually the >most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it >happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation? >What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you >suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning >this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or >something else?
No. They're claiming that there are contemporaneous reports, and yet it is obvious from what else they posted that even those contemp reports are far from complete or accurate. So it is reasonable to ask, if Crenshaw's account is to be criticized for lacking Nov 63 mention of LBJ's call, whether there ARE ANY contemp accounts from Crenshaw. Just because, for example, neither Williams or Crenshaw or Bartlett prepared a contemporaneous report doesn't mean that what they said later doesn't count!
>I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important "facts" >which are claimed for the first time many years after an event, ESPECIALLY >when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never >mentioned such "facts."
No argument, but what evidence do we have for Williams' having publicly commented on the JFK case in the past, or Crenshaw, or Bartlett?
McA, unlike you or me, happily cites Parkland MD's later accounts of JFK' head wound, and discounts what they wrote on the day he was killed, or what they testified to the WC.
>Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I >think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been mentioned >almost from day one.
>Rick
I don't entirely buy Crenshaw's full account of it. But one can't dismiss out of hand the mutually corroborating accounts of three independent observers, can one?
> You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same > "back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
> So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he > says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that > all the buffs believe.
> Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from > talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean > Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't > happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could* > have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the information he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say, gleaned from the literature.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
You know yourself, because I was standing there when you spoke with her at the JFK Lancer Student's Symposium, that Mrs. Bartlett said she specifically DID NOT include any government calls in or out in her report. She was the supervisor of the PBX board and was privy to all the calls made by White House aids, FBI agents and Secret Service Agents as she was there the entire weekend. She is entirely professional about her vocation and has never commented on what she may have overheard. (Did you know Mrs. Barlett has had a book written about her life and an exhibit on her at a Texas University? She has lived a fascinating life and is an extremely credible witness.)
The ONLY reason she wrote the letter to the newspaper was in defense of Dr.Crenshaw's claim. She stated the call came in from the White House and she and the other operator sitting next to her immediately recognized LBJ's voice. Being Texans, they were very familar with him.
As we know LBJ's mode of operation was to use the phone extensively, why would it be out of character for him to call any hospital in his home state and ask to speak with the surgeon? Especially Oswald's surgeon. It is not. What you can question is Dr. Crenshaw's interpretation of the call.
You heard her entire speech. So, to use her report as proof of a non-call is not being honest.
> In article <706n64$...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, > gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote: > > In <70606o$7s...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> > >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that > > >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we > > >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else > > >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from > > Washington. > > >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> > Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett > > and Crenshaw?
> Crenshaw did not write a report covering 11/22, but he did write one for > 11/24, which does not mention a telephone call from anyone. Bartlett > wrote a report covering her entire weekend and so did other switchboard > operators - none referred to a call from LBJ or from Washington. You'd > think someone there would have made a contemporaneous mention of such an > event, especially in light of the minor events they did write about.
> > >> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you > > >> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
> > >Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone > > in > > >Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
> > And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no > > contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by > > Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the > > comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
> Reading Crenshaw's book, one gets a sense there was great urgency in the > caller's voice, so much so that a critical operation was interrupted so > someone in the room could take a call which became the pithy "How's he > doing?" In the real world, at least one of the two operators who handled > "the" call would most likely refer to it in her report of important things > she saw and did that day. But I guess one can also say "Hey, they forgot."
> > >> If it did not, > > >> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett > > >> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently > > >> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
> > >I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ > > called. I > > >do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not > > >aware of a call from Washington, either.
> > Wasn't it Peters who wrote a letter that is published in Groden and > > Livingstone's "High Treason" in which he put an arrow into the middle > > of the defect McClelland drew at the lower, right-rear portion of a > > skull to indicate the location of the skull defect? (Yes, it was.) > > And wasn't it the same Peters who later, and without explanation, > > suddenly changed his mind on where it was? (Yes, it was. He indicated a > > much higher position on a skull directly to me during a presentation he > > made on the JFK case in a San Francisco speech I attended. Quite > > amusing, really.) > > And have you asked him about why his version of JFK's skull wound has > > wandered over the years? > > And are we all not Posner acolytes, who embrace his dictum that one > > should place greatest faith in a witness' earliest recollection? (We're > > not?) > > And so should we now believe EVERYTHING Peters says, especially when it > > contradicts what he's said before? (_ _ _ _ - fill in blanks.)
> > Well it was Bill Hamley, I believe, who mentioned Peters. Perhaps he > > (or whoever it was) will chime in.
> Gary, calm down. I have no problem with Parkland-Bethesda discrepancy > discussions. It is a real problem. What possible relation does Peters' > account of Kennedy's wounds have to do with whether or not Crenshaw's > claim of a call from LBJ is factual?
> All I pointed out was the TOTAL lack of contemporaneous corroboration for > the LBJ phone call story and impressive information that he could not have > made such a call.
> At the very least, the doctor in the opeating room whom Crenshaw > supposedly told, Tom Shires, refused to publicly support his former > colleague's story. He declined comment to me and to others who tried. And > Shires was Crenshaw's mentor!
> -- > Gary Mack > Archivist > The Sixth Floor Museum
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities > that > >> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents > we > >> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else > >> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from > >> Washington. > >> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by > Bartlett > >> and Crenshaw?
> >Gary:
> >What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually > the > >most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it > >happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation?
> >What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you > >suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning > >this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or > >something else?
> No. They're claiming that there are contemporaneous reports, and yet it > is obvious from what else they posted that even those contemp reports > are far from complete or accurate. So it is reasonable to ask, if > Crenshaw's account is to be criticized for lacking Nov 63 mention of > LBJ's call, whether there ARE ANY contemp accounts from Crenshaw. Just > because, for example, neither Williams or Crenshaw or Bartlett prepared > a contemporaneous report doesn't mean that what they said later doesn't > count!
> >I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important > "facts" > >which are claimed for the first time many years after an event, > ESPECIALLY > >when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never > >mentioned such "facts."
> No argument, but what evidence do we have for Williams' having publicly > commented on the JFK case in the past, or Crenshaw, or Bartlett?
> McA, unlike you or me, happily cites Parkland MD's later accounts of > JFK' head wound, and discounts what they wrote on the day he was > killed, or what they testified to the WC.
> >Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I > >think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been > mentioned > >almost from day one.
> >Rick
> I don't entirely buy Crenshaw's full account of it. But one can't > dismiss out of hand the mutually corroborating accounts of three > independent observers, can one?
> gary
Dr. Crenshaw is quite persuasive in his book as to why he dummied up about the call at the time. He had just seen what was going on with the Kennedy assassination, and compared to a president of the United States, who the hell was he? I'm a pretty bold and outspoken person, but in those circumstances I think I would have dummied up just like Crenshaw did.
Another thing vouching for the authenticity of Crenshaw's account is the thoroughly dishonest review of his book given by the New York Times (which I have squirreled away somewhere in my files). If the guy is not telling the truth, why do they have to resort to outright lying in an attempt to discredit him?
A related point:
Treachery's Fruits
I've seen several presidents come and go, And Bill is the worst one yet, But with those at the top now running the show, He's as good as we're going to get.
>> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean >> Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't >> happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could* >> have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
>Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the information >he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say, gleaned >from the literature.
There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
> >> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities > that > >> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents > we > >> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else > >> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from > >> Washington. > >> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by > Bartlett > >> and Crenshaw?
> >Gary:
> >What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually > the > >most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it > >happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation?
> >What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you > >suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning > >this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or > >something else?
> No. They're claiming that there are contemporaneous reports, and yet it > is obvious from what else they posted that even those contemp reports > are far from complete or accurate. So it is reasonable to ask, if > Crenshaw's account is to be criticized for lacking Nov 63 mention of > LBJ's call, whether there ARE ANY contemp accounts from Crenshaw. Just > because, for example, neither Williams or Crenshaw or Bartlett prepared > a contemporaneous report doesn't mean that what they said later doesn't > count!
> >I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important > "facts" > >which are claimed for the first time many years after an event, > ESPECIALLY > >when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never > >mentioned such "facts."
> No argument, but what evidence do we have for Williams' having publicly > commented on the JFK case in the past, or Crenshaw, or Bartlett?
> McA, unlike you or me, happily cites Parkland MD's later accounts of > JFK' head wound, and discounts what they wrote on the day he was > killed, or what they testified to the WC.
In this propensity, McA reminds me a lot of RFK and VFW cover-up artist, Dan E. Moldea. Check out point #13 in "Dan Moldea's America" copied below:
The United States of America in which I was born and raised was the America of the civics textbooks. We were "the land of the free and the home of the brave." We were safely protected against tyranny through the ingenious system of checks and balances that our founding fathers had built into our government. Our freedom was safeguarded further by the Bill of Rights, in particular the First Amendment which guaranteed a free and uncontrolled press. We were truly Lincoln's "last best hope of earth."
Then, not too long after the Kennedy assassination it began to dawn on me that something was amiss. A lot of things seemed to be going on behind the scenes that we weren't being told about. In 1992 I voted for Bill Clinton as a protest vote against what I perceived as this pervasive corruption of our system. Imagine that, a vote for Clinton as a vote against corruption!
It didn't take me long to recognize my error. I had been like the Russian who backed the Bolsheviks out of protest over the oppression of the Czars. The Waco massacre was the first obvious sign that things were quickly getting a lot worse. The covered-up, hushed-up murder of scandal researcher Paul Wilcher in his D.C. townhouse in June of 1993 was another sign. Then came the discovery in Fort Marcy Park of the body of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. The death immediately aroused my curiosity because the press seemed curiously incurious about such a curious choice of a site and the lack of anything approaching a convincing explanation for why it was being called an "apparent suicide" by the authorities. It also attracted my interest because I remembered Vince as an intramural basketball opponent back at Davidson College in the years surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
My interest has manifested itself in a number of poems and the long essay, "America's Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," now in five parts on my web site. What comes through very clearly in that body of work is my realization that I am no longer living in the country in which I thought I grew up. As my fellow Tar Heel, Thomas Wolfe, said, "You can't go home again."
But wait. I recently read a book entitled "A Washington Tragedy, How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm," and I find there a mythical recreation that very closely resembles the America of my youthful fancy. It's not quite Mr. Rogers' neighborhood, but it comes close. It's:
Dan Moldea's America
1. In Dan Moldea's America, deputy White House counsels don't come to the job fresh from having handled the legal work for the person reportedly responsible for bringing to America the largest criminal enterprise in history, a person heavily involved in financing both Republican and Democratic political campaigns, most recently the campaign of America's president, the counsel's boss.
2. In Dan Moldea's America, the deputy White House counsel does not engage in two days of meetings two days before his mysterious violent death, meetings with the Deputy U.S. Attorney General and another person heavily involved in political finance who also has invested in casinos jointly with members of the Gambino family and the Meyer Lansky organization.
3. In Dan Moldea's America, there have never been strong, attributed allegations that the deputy White House counsel had contracted a detective to spy on the future president at the behest of the future first lady, that the detective and the future deputy White House counsel had themselves been involved in the illegal drug business, and that the detective correctly predicted his own subsequent murder upon hearing of the death of the deputy White House counsel.
4. In Dan Moldea's America, presidents don't have close friends, family members, and political backers who are or have been heavily involved in the illegal drug business.
5. In Dan Moldea's America, presidents have never had subordinates who have covered up murders related to the illegal drug business or people apparently working on their behalf who have either threatened or actually inflicted bodily harm upon inconvenient witnesses.
6. In Dan Moldea's America, autopsy doctors might make occasional mistakes, but they are never simply flat-out corrupt fabricators of the cause of death at the behest of corrupt higher-ups who are protecting powerful people engaged in the illegal drug business.
7. In Dan Moldea's America, heaven forbid that government clandestine and police organizations themselves might be involved in the illegal drug business, and, of course, no serious allegations have ever been made that they are.
8. In Dan Moldea's America, if there were any truth at all in things hinted at in numbers 1-7, America's major news organizations would have duly reported them, with appropriate emphasis.
9. In Dan Moldea's America, the word of a public official is always worth more than that of a private citizen unless, perhaps, that private citizen is employed by a major news organization.
10. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organizations are interested only in pursuit of the truth. They never knowingly withhold important information from the public and they would never, ever knowingly assist public officials in covering up a crime.
11. In Dan Moldea's America, if a capital-area college student doing undercover work for the Drug Enforcement Administration were to have been ruled dead of a gunshot suicide by the authorities and a second autopsy paid for by the parents showed convincingly that the young man was beaten to death, the news would not be blacked out by The Washington Post.
12. In Dan Moldea's America, the major news organs do not get ahead of the official "investigators" in uncovering and revealing anonymously sourced "evidence" that reinforces the official line.
13. In Dan Moldea's America, when witnesses, suspects, or investigators change their story, the last story told is always to be believed implicitly when it supports the official line.
14. In Dan Moldea's America, government agents would not harass and intimidate a witness in an important case and if it were to happen, it would not be ignored by the major news organs.
15. In Dan Moldea's America, official reports on important investigations are always critically examined and duly reported upon by major news organizations.
16. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organs do not falsely report that investigating police did not talk to immediate family members on the night of the mysterious violent death of a high level government official and leave the record uncorrected for a year.
17. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organs do not black out the news that a suicide note in a high-profile case has been determined to be a forgery by reputable handwriting examiners.
18. In Dan Moldea's America, there is an adversarial relationship between the government and the press.
19. In Dan Moldea's America, challenges to the official verdict in high level cases come only from nebulously-defined "conspiracy theorists" or well-financed political fanatics.
20. In Dan Moldea's America, certain reporters are granted selective access to official "investigators" not because the reporters are stooges who will parrot the obvious official line--or the less obvious disinformation line-- but because they possess exceptional charm.
>You know yourself, because I was standing there when you spoke with her at >the JFK Lancer Student's Symposium, that Mrs. Bartlett said she >specifically DID NOT include any government calls in or out in her report. >She was the supervisor of the PBX board and was privy to all the calls >made by White House aids, FBI agents and Secret Service Agents as she was >there the entire weekend. She is entirely professional about her vocation >and has never commented on what she may have overheard. (Did you know Mrs. >Barlett has had a book written about her life and an exhibit on her at a >Texas University? She has lived a fascinating life and is an extremely >credible witness.)
>The ONLY reason she wrote the letter to the newspaper was in defense of >Dr.Crenshaw's claim. She stated the call came in from the White House and >she and the other operator sitting next to her immediately recognized >LBJ's voice. Being Texans, they were very familar with him.
>As we know LBJ's mode of operation was to use the phone extensively, why >would it be out of character for him to call any hospital in his home >state and ask to speak with the surgeon? Especially Oswald's surgeon. It >is not. What you can question is Dr. Crenshaw's interpretation of the >call.
>You heard her entire speech. So, to use her report as proof of a non-call >is not being honest.
Deborah,
OK, you have a witness who said *nothing* of this explosive call from LBJ until 30 years after the fact. And then she starts telling an "interesting" story, and appearing before conspiracy conventions.
Why should Gary prefer her latter-day testimony to her early reports?
She sounds a lot like Jean Hill, Beverly Oliver, and Gordon Arnold.
Yep, I know Gary is not going to like putting Arnold in the group :-).
And Deborah, you need to address Crenshaw's statements in his book that strain credibility. As when he claims to have seen a small wound in Kennedy's throat that had to be an entrance wound.
It's the sort of thing that buffs eat up. Unfortunately, the trachestomy had already been started when he entered, and he could not have seen the unaltered wound!
> >> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
> >> Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't > >> happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could* > >> have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
> >Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the > information > >he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say, > gleaned > >from the literature.
> There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from > the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from
> the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
> Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the > DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening > clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in > Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
Well maybe that's because there were both John. Maybe he saw both as di many other Dallas citizens. Didn't LBJ's girlfriend say that H.L. personally showed her the handbill? Must have been prowd of his son's work. Y'know, I've often wondered whether H.L. had a premonition of what his son would look like in adulthood when he named him Bunker.
> You know yourself, because I was standing there when you spoke with > her at > the JFK Lancer Student's Symposium, that Mrs. Bartlett said she > specifically DID NOT include any government calls in or out in her > report. > She was the supervisor of the PBX board and was privy to all the calls
> made by White House aids, FBI agents and Secret Service Agents as she > was > there the entire weekend. She is entirely professional about her > vocation > and has never commented on what she may have overheard. (Did you know > Mrs. > Barlett has had a book written about her life and an exhibit on her at > a > Texas University? She has lived a fascinating life and is an extremely
> credible witness.)
> The ONLY reason she wrote the letter to the newspaper was in defense > of > Dr.Crenshaw's claim. She stated the call came in from the White House > and > she and the other operator sitting next to her immediately recognized > LBJ's voice. Being Texans, they were very familar with him.
> As we know LBJ's mode of operation was to use the phone extensively, > why > would it be out of character for him to call any hospital in his home > state and ask to speak with the surgeon? Especially Oswald's surgeon. > It > is not. What you can question is Dr. Crenshaw's interpretation of the > call.
> You heard her entire speech. So, to use her report as proof of a > non-call > is not being honest.
> Debra
Bravo Debra. I knew there was more to this but the memory is foggy. Not only that but what Dr Crenshaw said of the conversation is so typically LBJ that the cap fits. I do wonder why LBJ, if it is true, would think Oswald would be about to confess since he was adamant earlier that he killed nobody. I can only think that if LBJ was aware of the plot he would not have known who the mechanics would be and may have thought that this man was one of them and may cop the blame if he thought he was dying anyway. With a little pressure of course. When you think about it Ruby almost botched his job completely. One shot in the gut with a hospital nearbye is often surviveable. If the police had not completely botched the first aid he probably would have lived, for a little while at least. I understand they tried CPR or some form of resusitation which is fatal with stomach wounds. Another plus for the DPD eh? They were trained in first aid in their job weren't they? No wonder the mayor Cabell did not want Chief Curry in the basement.
