Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
David S. Lifton
August, 1979. At that time, he told me three things about the JFK
autopsy:
1) The body arrived in a shipping casket
2) Inside the casket, the body was inside a body bag
3) The cranium was empty.
Elaborating, he explained that the normal procedure didn't have to be
followed in this case--because the cranium was empty.
As students of this case know, there is no brain weight listed on the
autopsy chart. Also, on the diagram of the skull made by Boswell, the
word "missing" appears--which may refer to the skullcap, but may also
refer to the contents of the cranium--i.e., the brain.
Paul O'Connor had no idea, when he spoke with me, that these
facts--the three numbered observations above-- completely contradicted
the official version of the JFK autopsy. He was just telling it like
it was.
Moreover, Paul O'Connor had already related the same facts to Andrew
Purdy, of the House Select Committee--who was so ignorant of the
implications--that he had no idea what a body bag was.
When I received the Report of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) in July 1979--via Express Mail, and within days
of its public release--I certainly understood the implications of the
fact that the body had arrived in a body bag, as reported in Vol 7 of
that report, and footnoted to the O'Connor account, written by Purdy,
but which was not released for some 14 years, under the auspices of
the JFK Records Act.
In other words, although the OCR was written in 1977/78, I didn't get
to see it until 14/15 years after I spoke with O'Connor on the phone.
In Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, I described what happened when I
confronted Purdy with this information. "What's a body bag?" he wanted
to know. Apparently, he wasn't watching too much TV, during the
Vietnam war years. Obviously, he had not served in Vietnam.
But Purdy, albeit embarrassed, was helpful, and it was because of
Purdy that I was able to locate and interview O'Connor, by phone, in
August 1979.
I did not have the privilege of reading O'Connor's account until about
1994.
I realized the importance of what he was telling me; I also realized
it should be preserved on film.
But interviews cost money.
Back then, a film shoot such as the one I did with O'Connor was done
on 16 mm negative film, involved a crew of about 3 people, and cost
about $4,000 (1980 dollars).
In order not to have him ruminating about political implications, I
maintained my own composure on the telephone; but told O'Connor I
would like for him to repeat on camera what he had told me. He
agreed---and some 14 months later, in October 1980, just 2-3 months
before Best Evidence appeared in the book stores, and when I received
financial support from the publisher for the project, I re-interviewed
O'Connor in Gainesville, Florida--and he said the exact same thing.
Shipping casket; body bag; empty cranium.
Only now, on camera, I pulled out all the stops--I cross examined
O'Connor as hard as I could, challenging him, pointing out
contradictions between what he saw that night and what had been seen
earlier in Dallas, and also what was in the Warren Report.
On every point, O'Connor held his ground. It is exactly for that
reason why the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO has such power. Because
O'Connor (a) didn't understand the implications and (b) was challenged
on the implications of his observations, and without any rehearsal.
I stress: without any rehearsal. There was absolutely no
"pre-interview prep." I didn't show O'Connor any record of the August
1979 interview. I didn't show him the chapter I had written in BEST
EVIDENCE, and which was due to come out within about two months.
The only conversation we had after August 1979, was one sometime prior
to the October 1980 interview, for the purpose of setting up an
appointment, in Florida, for the interview.
So when O'Connor went on camera in October 1980 and repeated the same
account he had given me in August 1979, my confidence in him only
increased.
And at that time, of course, I had no access to the Outside Contact
Report that Purdy had written back in 1977 or 1978.
Subsequent to my Florida visit, I learned--possibly from O'Connor--of
the Florida newspaper interview, back at the time of the Purdy
interview, which said the same thing.
So the "O'Connor data"--if you will--involves these separate
interviews:
1977/78-Purdy:
Same (approx) Florida Newspaper
August 1979--My telephone intervifew
October 1980--my filmed interview
Then Best Evidence was published (first available late December 1980);
and then came another, much more elaborate, Florida newspaper
interivew.
So, by this time, we have 5 separate interviews--in which O'Connor was
consistent.
At some point, O'Connor was flown to England and was interviewed in
connection with the Bugliosi/Spence program called the Trial of Lee
Harvey Oswald. The production company was London Weekly Television.
I have no idea why, on that occasion, O'Connor gave a version of
events that was different. I would certainly like to know what kind
of pre-interviewing was done by the production company, or Bugliosi,
or whoever. Because it seems inexplicable that O'Connor, having
given the same account some 5 times, would change it for any reason
in 1985.
And then there is this footnote: In the fall of 1988, KRON-TV--with
Sylvia Chase as the interviewer, and Stanhope Gould (who had been the
CBS producer, under Cronkite, responsible for their ground-breaking
Watergate covergage) interviewed O'Connor. I was there. Again, he
gave the same account he had given me in 1980--but, as Stanhope said
to me, it didn't have the same sense of drama that my footage did,
because it was perfectly clear, in my October 1980 interview, that
O'Connor didn't understand the implications of what he was saying. By
1988, he certainly did.
To move on: In 1989, I returned with another professional film crew,
and this time we did an interview that was over an hour, perhaps two
hours, in length. Again, the same account, only in much greater
detail. Also, on that occassion, O'Connor swore out a statement--on
camera--to these same facts.
And then, there is one other interview: Around 1990, O'Connor and
Aubrey Rike appeared on HARDCOPY, a production of Paramount TV, here
in Los Angeles. Again, O'Connor went through the same facts, only
now he met Aubrey Rike for the first time.
Also, On that occassion, and never before having had O'Connor and Rike
together before, I arranged to have an elaborate joint interview, in
the evening. Again, the same facts.
So let's see now. . .we have how many interviews?
1. House Select Committee; 1977/78
2. Florida Newspaper: around the same time
3. August, 1979--David Lifton, via telephone
4. October, 1980-David Lifton, on camera
5. 1981, after publication of B.E.: Florida newspaper
6. 1985; London Weekly Television (Bugliosi, etc.)
7. 1988: KRON-TV (Sylvia Chase/Stanhope Guild)
8. 1989: David Lifton, 2 hr detailed interview, with signed statements
9. 1990: Hardcopy; O'Connor and Rike
10. 1990: same Los Angeles visit--detailed interview
There is only one data point in these ten events that doesn't fit--and
that is the Bugliosi interview. I have no idea what was said to
O'Connor in London. I doubt very much that the program flew O'Connor
to London and put him up in a hotel, and did all this without any
pre--interviewing. And pre-interviewing can completely vitiate the
validity of what is shown on camera. It is, basically, a rehearsal.
Naturally, I would like to know what the pre-interviewing consisted
of--who conducted it, and what was said.
All I can tell you is that, as the above record indicates, Paul
O'Connor has been consistent, throughout my experiences with him, and
they began with that first phone interview in August, 1979.
The Johnnie-Come-Latelies who come forward at this very late date,
trying to discredit O'Connor by pointing to the one anomalous 1985TV
interview, and without any firm knowledge of what pre-interviewing
preceded that interview, have a weak case.
Harry Livingstone once tried to twist O'Connor's words around, and
attempt to misrepresent what he experienced that night, and what he
said about it. After that experience, O'Connor and I had a phone
conversation, in which he expressed his own dismay at Livingstone's
antics.
He remembered exactly how it was, and repeated it all over again--
the same basic facts--just as described in the HSCA document, and as
related to me in August 1979, on the phone; and then again on camera
in October 1980.
Paul O'Connor is a truth teller. It is others who are attempting to
twist his account around, and pretend it is all false. It is they, not
O'Connor, who are promoting an urban legend.
O'Connor saw some rather important things on the night of November 22.
That is why, within a day or so of the autopsy, he was ordered not to
talk--subject to court martial.
Those on this news group who are placing their bet with Bugliosi's
version of O'Connor are backing a losing proposition with little
credibility.
DSL
John Fiorentino
UNDER OATH are on record, as are his other statements.
As I mentioned to Mr. Lifton, I give O'Connor the benefit of the doubt in
my book, and I think I explain in a reasonable fashion, how he could be
mistaken.
There are of course, only 3 possibilities. O'Connor is correct, he is
mistaken, or he is lying. There is enough evidence to contradict his story
in the official record, even without his comments, to cast serious doubts
on O'Connor's recollections.
Perhaps sitting in a witness chair UNDER OATH made the difference. But
whatever the reason, Mr. O'Connor DID LIE UNDER OATH to Vincent Bugliosi.
John F.
David S. Lifton <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
SnorkinMan
interview. Can someone fill us in?
Darren
<< Subject: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton)
Date: Thu, Feb 6, 2003 5:07 PM
Message-id: <460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com>
Robert Olin
Thanks for all of your hard work and for your book. You are what I
consider a real "Super Patriot". On the 30th Anniversary I wrote a Letter
to the Editor of our small local paper and used much or your material.
It wasn't much but I woke up a some of the locals and they told me as
much. The autopsy pretty much says it and is indeed the "Best Evidence",
unless you are a disinformation agent or a mental midget and I hope you
never let those sort get you down.
RO
"David S. Lifton" <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
John Fiorentino
Paul O'Connor also lied to attorney Jerry Spence. When Spence asked him
where he was during the autopsy, he indicated at the head of the
President. Spence also asked him, "Were you at the head of the President
the whole time the autopsy was taken?" O'Connor replied, "The whole time."
Unfortunately O'Connor's assertion of being at the head of the President
the "whole time the autopsy was taken." DOES NOT MATCH his statements
during his HSCA interview.
++++++++++++
Relevant portions below..........
O'Connor said it was "..a funny autopsy." He said one reason was because
when they started viscerating (sic) the body O'Connor was asked to leave.
He noted that Jenkins remained. He said Dr. Boswell or Humes told him to
go outside the room (he was guarded by a Marine while he did); he remained
outside approximately thirty or forty minutes.
When O'Connor returned to the autopsy room he heard "...someone say there
had not been a normal autopsy."
Source: - O'Connor-Purdy HSCA Interview (8/29/77)
(Excerpts)
++++++++++++
So it is quite apparent Mr. O'Connor is LESS than a reliable witness.
Contrary to his statements under oath to Jerry Spence, O'Connor told the
HSCA that he was IN FACT ABSENT from the autopsy for "thirty or forty
minutes."
This is certainly a far cry from his claim that he was at the head of the
President during the autopsy "the whole time."
These are among the claims Mr. Lifton has used to build his Titanic "Best
Evidence" fantasy. A fantasy Lifton wants his readers to accept as fact.
John F.
David S. Lifton <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
SnorkinMan
semantics????
When he said "The whole time." couldn't that simply be read or construed as
meaning "The whole time he was in the autopsy room"? Seems obvious to anyone
who reads it.
I mean, come on!!! Calling him a liar?
<< Subject: Re: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: "John Fiorentino" jston...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, Feb 7, 2003 5:39 AM
Message-id: <3e43...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
David S. Lifton
a TV program--even if technically "under oath"--has greater validity
than the original O'Connor statement made to an attorney from the
House Select Committee on Assassinations--especially when the witness
had been under a military order NOT to talk, subject to court martial,
and especially given the enormous effort that went into getting that
order rescinded.
As I have stated, the unknown factor here is exactly what the 1985
pre-production interviews consisted of. I've never looked into this;
so I simply don't know. But to give the TV statement greater validity
is completely bizarre and unjustified.
But I think anyone who subscribes to that position would benefit from
a good course on evidence, not to mention the application of some
common sense.
Normally, the earliest recorded recollect is considered the best
evidence. Even in an automobile accident, a statement made 3 days
later is not given the same weight as a statement made at the scene.
Here, unfortunately, because of the military order not to talk, we are
talking about years. But the principle is the same.
And you want to take a statement made in 1985, and give it greater
weight than one made in 1977? The first statement made after a
military order not to talk has been rescinded?
Oh, pleeez. Let's get real. You have not found some secret path to
some great hidden truth. Rather, you focusing on an anomaly in order
to avoid the very obvious and important fact that O'Connor told the
truth in the very first record that was created by an official
investigation.
Had the original OCR record been available to Spence and those doing
the London TV program, this confusion would never have happened.
(And, of course, are you aware that the ARRB found--and took a
statement from--a second body bag witness? From the Gawler's funeral
home? Or is that something that is also below some arbitrary
threshold of significance?)
Give it up, John. You're pursuing much ado about nothing.
DSL
Rouser
Relevant portions below..........
Comment: How utterly absurd! This is what comes from a dedicated
attempt to parse and spin words. What O'Conner was obviusly responding
to was Spence's question as to where he was AS TO HIS LOCATION during
the autopsy the whole time of the autopsy WHEN HE WAS PRESENT. His
response was that he was there at the head of the president "the whole
time" -- meaning the exact location of where he was whole time he was
present at the autopsy. Nor was any of this stuff "Under Oath". When
one swears an oath on a TV show dramatization, that is no more an
"Oath" under penalty of perjury than an "Oath" before Judge Judy.
Ridiculous!
John Fiorentino
interpret it any other way. When you combine this with his statement to
Bugliosi, which is also contradicted in his HSCA OCR report, I think there
is only one logical conclusion that can be reached. O'Connor was an
unreliable witness.
John F.
SnorkinMan <snork...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030207021931...@mb-fz.aol.com...
John Fiorentino
the assumption that O'Connor's recollections are accurate. And, as I have
subsequently posted O'Connor lied under oath to Jerry Spence as well.
Now you can ASSUME he was telling the truth, but I can DOCUMENT that he
lied. Perhaps it is yourself who could benefit from "a good course on
evidence" and the application of some common sense.
John F.
David S. Lifton <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
John Fiorentino
parse and spin words."
That is very funny.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.03020...@posting.google.com...
Robert Olin
lawyers have the old adage "find a mouse hole and drive a Mac Truck
through it". It can work on some weak minded jury members.
RO
"SnorkinMan" <snork...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030207021931...@mb-fz.aol.com...
John Fiorentino
issue of perjury, so I am not going to post it again, you can look it up.
Second, simply put, why would he lie anyway?.......Regardless of being
under oath or not?.....Does it take an "oath" to make people tell the
truth?
Third.....Your comparison to "Judge Judy" is what is ridiculous. Have you
ever seen the documentary program we are talking about? ........If not,
perhaps you should. And while you are viewing it please do take note of
the RELENTLESS pounding Jerry Spence delivered to Ruth Paine, AND her
reactions to same. If you think she was "acting" you are sadly mistaken.
I recommend everyone view this documentary.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.03020...@posting.google.com...
John Fiorentino
at how the ARRB wants us to view much of what they heard........
+++++++++++
"Profoundly Unreliable"
The contradictions that litter the testimony caused Dr. Jeremy Gunn,
Executive Director and General Counsel of the ARRB to conclude the
following in a speech at Stanford:
The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the
evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the
profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You
just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even
worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness
testimony.
I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases
of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of
President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are
profoundly unreliable.
Likewise, the Final Report of the ARRB stressed the problems with witness
testimony:
The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
statements as "proof" for one theory or another.
++++++++++++
Perhaps you should follow their advice David.
John F.
David S. Lifton <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
Chad Zimmerman
So, regardless of content, it is okay to change your story so long as you
are not under possibility of perjury. We have just established that the
story you tell the most wins and you can change anything you want so long
as 'real perjury' is not an issue. Is that what is being said here?
Chad
Caeruleo
snork...@aol.com (SnorkinMan) wrote:
> I don't have an opinion either way on this subject, but isn't this just
> semantics????
>
> When he said "The whole time." couldn't that simply be read or construed as
> meaning "The whole time he was in the autopsy room"? Seems obvious to anyone
> who reads it.
Doesn't seem obvious to me:
Q.: Were you at the head of the President the whole time the autopsy was
taken?
A.: The whole time.
He wasn't asked, was he at the head during the whole time you were present
at the autopsy, he was asked, was he at the head the whole time the
autopsy was taken, to which he apparently replied with an unqualified
affirmative.
--
Belief in the traditional Single Bullet Theory is not even mildly
necessary to support a belief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the one & only
assassin of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Caeruleo
dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote:
> I am certain Paul O'Connor told the truth when I interviewed him in
> August, 1979. At that time, he told me three things about the JFK
> autopsy:
>
> 1) The body arrived in a shipping casket
> 2) Inside the casket, the body was inside a body bag
> 3) The cranium was empty.
I have rather a problem with 3), with Finck, Humes, et al giving such
detailed & extensive descriptions of the brain, the damage to it, & its
removal from the cranium, both contemporaneously & in the ensuing decades.
Do you propose that they made all this up out of thin air?
SnorkinMan
vantage point while he was in the autopsy room. Again, I don't have an
opinion either way on Mr. O'Connor, but I do have an open mind--something
that is severely lacking on this board.
<< Subject: Re: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: Caeruleo caer...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, Feb 8, 2003 12:31 AM
Message-id: <caeruleo-225FD4...@news.fu-berlin.de>
John Fiorentino
Regards,
John F.
Chad Zimmerman <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:abf9ca5.03020...@posting.google.com...
Rouser
> First off Rouser, it WAS a REAL OATH. I have already commented on the
> issue of perjury, so I am not going to post it again, you can look it up.<<
It was not a "real oath". It was a feigned oath, a "let's pretend" oath at
a simulated (mock) trial. Do you understand the difference between a real
trial and a mock trial? Do you understand the meaning of the words "mock
trial"?
> Second, simply put, why would he lie anyway?<
He did not "lie".
> Third.....Your comparison to "Judge Judy" is what is ridiculous. Have you
> ever seen the documentary program we are talking about?<<
Yes. I saw it the very first time it was aired. Did you see it?
>>........If not,
> perhaps you should. And while you are viewing it please do take note of
> the RELENTLESS pounding Jerry Spence delivered to Ruth Paine, AND her
> reactions to same.<<
All of which, even if true, has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at
hand, namely your unsupported contention that O'Connor lied under "oath",
and therefore cannot be considered a good witness. Incidently, as a matter
of record, have you, yourself ever told a lie? (Hey, you can take the 5th
on that if you so choose).
-- Rouser
Rouser
>>So, regardless of content, it is okay to change your story so long as
you are not under possibility of perjury. We have just established that
the story you tell the most wins and you can change anything you want so
long as 'real perjury' is not an issue. Is that what is being said here?<<
"We" haven't established anything. Truth is truth no matter how often or
how infrequently it is spoken. What "we" have established is that Paul
O'Connor wasn't under any kind of "oath". Nor has anyone established any
willful or deliberate "lie" on the part of Paul O'Connor.
Rouser
>>He wasn't asked, was he at the head during the whole time you were
present at the autopsy, he was asked, was he at the head the whole time
the autopsy was taken, to which he apparently replied with an unqualified
affirmative.<<
It was not a simple, but a complex or compound question with two parts --
one part, where were you located during the autopsy, the other part, were
you at that location during the entire autopsy. O'Connor simply assumed
the second part of the question referred to the first part and was not a
separate question. To conclude a willful and deliberate varience from the
truth is a tortured stretch. O'Connor had nothing to gain by answering the
question untruthfully.
Chad Zimmerman
Has DSL found any physicians to corroborate the hypothesis? Are there any
doctors who could take a wound and 'mask' it, using equipment available in
1963- and I don't mean all that super secret CIA medical equipment and
techniques that weren't released to the public until the 90's for security
reasons (just speculating on the technology needed to do this? Where's all
the independent corroboration that should be so easy to find if this is
true? Where are the doctors and who are they? Let's name names here.
Chad
John Fiorentino
O'Connor's statements. TWICE, not once and yes UNDER OATH O'Connor did in
fact lie.
Quite obviously it was a "mock trial".....which has NO RELEVANCE to
O'Connor's statements therein. I also notice as you twist and turn you
zero in on his statement to Jerry Spence, and seem to ignore his other
statement to Vincent Bugliosi. Was this intentional?
If you believe O'Connor told the truth, that is your prerogative.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.03020...@posting.google.com...
Rouser
>>Has DSL found any physicians to corroborate the hypothesis? Are
there any
doctors who could take a wound and 'mask' it, using equipment
available in
1963- <<
Morticians do it all the time.
>>Where's all the independent corroboration that should be so easy to
find if this is true? Where are the doctors and who are they? Let's
name names here.<<
D. Horne of the ARRB concluded the autopsy brain was a fake. What more
do you need?
Tony Szamboti
addition to all of the instances you site, O'Connor also says to Nigel
Turner's crew the same things he did to you. The one anomalous interview
has to be suspect like you say. I often get perturbed when I hear people
talk about the NOVA interviews of the Parkland doctors. That was a classic
case of trying to twist words.
Tony Szamboti
"David S. Lifton" <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.03020...@posting.google.com...
Chad Zimmerman
>From the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (verbatim):
Gerry Spence- "Well, where you at the head of the President all during
the time the autopsy was taken?"
Paul O'Connor- "The whole time."
Is this the truth, or not?
So, in other words, for his statements to be honest and truthful he has to
be under an official oath where perjury is a prosecutable offense? Does
this mean he may or may not have been truthful during his previous
interviews? What are you getting at...the story he told the most is the
truth? This must be working for O.J., too.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
David,
Who was the person that mentioned that the brainstem had already been
severed since the brain just fell into their hands? Does this relate to
Paul O'Connor saying that there was only about 1/2 a handful of brain
matter in the cranium prior to the autopsy?
Chad
SnorkinMan
NEVER see the photos that the doctors are referring to. Let's say, for the
sake of argument, that an original autopsy photograph was shown to the
doctors. IOW, one that shows the described large hole in the back of the
head. Now they come on camera saying that the wounds in the photos were as
they remembered them. Problem is...we HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what photos
they are seeing.
It's a simple case of logic. We viewers can only *assume* what photos they
are referring to.
--D
<< Subject: Re: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: "Tony Szamboti" tonysz...@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2003 2:38 AM
Message-id: <Jx-dnTrzkIM...@comcast.com>
SnorkinMan
<< Subject: Re: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: Doc...@cableone.net (Chad Zimmerman)
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2003 4:50 AM
Message-id: <abf9ca5.03020...@posting.google.com>
Rouser
> You can obfuscate until the cows come home, but you can't change
> O'Connor's statements.<
Can't change them? Hell, you can't even produce them.
> Quite obviously it was a "mock trial".....which has NO RELEVANCE to
> O'Connor's statements therein.<
It has every relevence to your own assertion that he lied "under
oath". He was not "under oath" and he did not lie.
>I also notice as you twist and turn you zero in on his statement to Jerry
Spence, and seem to ignore his other statement to Vincent Bugliosi. Was
this intentional?<
You still have failed to produce any lying statement to Vince
Bugliosi. Obviously, that IS intentional.
> If you believe O'Connor told the truth, that is your prerogative.<
And you are entitled to your own opinions as well. But you are not
entitled to your own facts.
-- Rouser
Cromwell
Chad Zimmerman <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message > >
<snip>
> > "We" haven't established anything. Truth is truth no matter how often or
> > how infrequently it is spoken. What "we" have established is that Paul
> > O'Connor wasn't under any kind of "oath". Nor has anyone established any
> > willful or deliberate "lie" on the part of Paul O'Connor.
>
> >From the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (verbatim):
>
> Gerry Spence- "Well, where you at the head of the President all during
> the time the autopsy was taken?"
>
> Paul O'Connor- "The whole time."
>
> Is this the truth, or not?
"From the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (verbatim):"
Thank you for the source reference. Does this mean you have transcribed
direct from a viewing of the video, or do you have a transcript from
another source. Perhaps, you have simply lifted this from one of John
Fiorentino's posts? What were the lead in questions? How did Spence
respond to this answer?
But it doesn't really matter. Look close enough and you will discover
contradictions in witness testimony. Memory is an excellent but flawed
tool. Is this deception or simply error? O'Connor, if this account is
accurate, was recalling events over twenty years previously. Many parts
of his story are corroborated by other witnesses(Gerald Custer, David
Dennis). Nobody in their right minds, would suggest that O'Connor wasn't
there. He obeyed his orders and kept his mouth shut, until he was sort out
by the investigators of the HSCA and David Lifton. The video of Best
Evidence, provides a unique experience, as we witness O'Connor and the
others, realizing for the first time, the awful truth of their collective
observations and the events that day. O'Connor say's the brain was
missing when the body arrived, Custer say's the brain was missing when he
took X-rays, BEFORE the autopsy. O'Connor say's the body arrived in a
cheap shipping casket. Dennis Davis remembers seeing the same thing.
By all means, post your snippets, but don't expect the earth to move.
>
> So, in other words, for his statements to be honest and truthful he has to
> be under an official oath where perjury is a prosecutable offense?
It's simple,
John Fiorentino claim: O'Connor was under oath when he testified.
Fact: O'Connor was participating in a mock trial, he was under a mock
oath and it had no legal meaning whatsoever.
John's claim is false.
Does
> this mean he may or may not have been truthful during his previous
> interviews? What are you getting at...the story he told the most is the
> truth? This must be working for O.J., too.
It has nothing to do with the veracity of O'Connors statements, whatever
they might be, but the original claim, that he made them UNDER OATH. He
didn't and the claim is false.
Geoff.
John Fiorentino
continued insistence that I haven't, will not change that fact either.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.0302...@posting.google.com...
John Fiorentino
bet with Bugliosi's version of O'Connor are backing a losing proposition
with little credibility."
+++++++++++++
However, this IS NOT "Bugliosi's version" of O'Connor.....it is indeed
O'Connor's version of O'Connor.
John F.
Chad Zimmerman
Regardless of an official oath or not, the question was whether or not
he told the truth. There are conflicts to his testimony about how long
he was in the autopsy. I posted this after I watched his testimony on
tape. He says he was there the whole time, but other times he says he
wasn't. I just want to know if he told the truth or not. That's all. I
am not 'looking for the earth to move'.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Geez...get over yourself. It's simple semantics.
>
actual testimony and wondering why he says he was at the entire
autopsy during that testimony and not at other times. Do you have an
answer other than the typical regurgitated 'semantics'?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
I don't know or am unfamiliar with D. Horne. Is he a physician? Also,
morticians do not do such a quality job as to excape the trained
medical eye. Morticians do not do that all the time, do they?
Chad
Paul Seaton
it for future examination. " (Reed, HSCA interview)
." STRINGER said the doctors had to crack the skull
somewhat to get the brain out, though they didn't have to
saw it off." (Stringer, HSCA interview)
]" Q: Okay. When they took the brain out, do
[7] you recall whether they weighed the brain or not?
[8] A: I believe so. I'm not sure, but I think
[9] they - They generally weigh everything.
[10] Q: Do you have any recollection as to what
[11] the - or how much of the brain had been blasted
[12] away, or any - Do you have any mental picture of
[13] the size of the brain at the time that it was
[14] removed?
[15] A: There was some, but I don't think there
[16] was much more than the side of your fist that was
[17] gone. Of course, the brain is soft in there. And
[18] it's hard to see what it's laying down in."....
] Q: Are you able to determine from these
[9] photographs whether the brain has been removed?
[10] A: No, the brain hasn't been removed.
[11] Q: So, these photographs also would have been
[12] taken right at the beginning of the autopsy?
[13] A: Yes.
Stringer ARRB
PI Q: Were you able to see-Again, this is
[a1 before any procedures done on the body. Were you
[q able to see into the cranium?
PI A: Oh, yes.
m 0: And was brain still there?
181 A: Yes, there was brain there.
PI Q: Do you have any sense of how much brain
[IO] was in the right hemisphere?
IllI A: No. I do know that it was not too much,
[lq because a large portion of the brain was sprayed
[131 onto the back of Kellerman and Grccr.Thcy still
[la] had it on their clothes. It certainly didn't come
1151 from-through the floor. It came -
[16] Q: sure.
1'7 A: - I mean, evidently- But they did have a
1191 large section.
WI I know later-afterwards, that tbcrc was
IM] not too much of the brain lcft.And it was taken
PII out, and it was put in a white jar.
(~1 Q: Were you present when that happened, when
[II the brain was rcmovcd?
n A: Yes, I was.
Q: Okay.
(O'Neill ARRB)
Rudnicki & JC Jenkins recall the brain being removed.
See Livingstone, 'Killing the Truth', p 711
Paul Seaton.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:abf9ca5.03021...@posting.google.com...
Rouser
RE:
> > D. Horne of the ARRB concluded the autopsy brain was a fake. What more
> > do you need?<<
>
>
> I don't know or am unfamiliar with D. Horne. Is he a physician? <<
Douglas Horne was the Assassinations Records Review Board's chief analyst
for military records.
Go to the article by George Lardner in the Washinton Post regarding the
AARB's conclusion as to JFK's brain (or fake substitute therein).
"Doctors who conducted the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy may have
performed two brain examinations in the days following his assassination,
possibly of two different brains, a staff report for the Assassinations
Records Review Board said...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm
Also,> morticians do not do such a quality job as to excape the
trained
> medical eye.<<
But they can certainly fool the naked eye of those who view fake
photographs.
Rouser
>>Gerry Spence- "Well, where you at the head of the President all during
the time the autopsy was taken?"
Paul O'Connor- "The whole time."
Is this the truth, or not?
>>So, in other words, for his statements to be honest and truthful he has
to be under an official oath where perjury is a prosecutable offense?<<
No. Neither is Mr. F's assertion that he was indeed "under oath". He was
not "under oath" as this was a "mock trial" with a simulated oath -- a
"mock oath". No, if we are to parse the minutia of trivial statements made
by a witness a decade prior, we must also judge Mr. F by the same measure,
and conclude that Mr. F can no longer be believed for he stated something
that was not so. In the case of Mr. O'Connor, it is clear to me he was
answering a complex question with a simple answer. In other words, the
answer is to the part about where he was located during his presence at
the autopsy. Not where he was located when he was not present.
Rouser
>>David Lifton says........."Those on this news group who are placing
their bet with Bugliosi's version of O'Connor are backing a losing
proposition with little credibility."
+++++++++++++
However, this IS NOT "Bugliosi's version" of O'Connor.....it is indeed
O'Connor's version of O'Connor.<<
It is also irrelevent minutia.
John Fiorentino
Your statement has to be one of the most bizarre deductions I have ever
seen.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.03021...@posting.google.com...
John Fiorentino
he made his UNDER OATH statements to Bugliosi?
I think you're on thin ice, by stating I am not to be believed.
John F.
Rouser <rou...@core.com> wrote in message
news:e5afd86a.0302...@posting.google.com...
SnorkinMan
I copied it from whatever post I was referring to. It didn't originate
from me.
I absolutely agree that this was a case of semantics. An open mind can
plainly see that.
Darren
<< Subject: Re: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
From: rou...@core.com (Rouser)
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2003 11:34 PM
Message-id: <e5afd86a.0302...@posting.google.com>
Rouser
>>And what "complex question with a simple answer" was he referring to
when
he made his UNDER OATH statements to Bugliosi?
I think you're on thin ice, by stating I am not to be believed<<
The statements he made under Bugliosi's questioning were not under
oath, and what he may or may not have accurately recalled saying to
an investigator a decade earlier are irrelevent minutia and have no
bearing on his credibility. You yourself can't even seem to remember
what it was either.
Rouser
>>And what "complex question with a simple answer" was he referring to
when
he made his UNDER OATH statements to Bugliosi?<<
If this is the exchange you are referring to (but too ashamed to
repeat), it is a classic case of the Fallacy of the Complex question:
"Paul O'Connor was asked why, if this was the most significantly
important thing he remembered (Kennedy not having a brain), why he
didn't mention it to the HSCA interviewers. O'Connor replied, 'They
didn't ask.' "
Bugliosi might have asked O'Connor if he had stopped beating his wife,
a question which assumes a definite answer had already been given to a
prior question which wasn't even asked -- a cheap below the belt
sucker punch tac that might be ployed by a slickster, smart-ass lawyer
to an naive, unsuspecting witness. But if Bugliosi asked O'Connor why
he didn't mention the missing brain to HSCA interviewers, the question
already assumes a definite answer which had not been given. Of course
O'Connor did indeed mention the missing brain, but under that kind of
sucker-punch questioning, simply forgot, and assumed Buliosi's
declaration was correct. Hardly a symptom of an "unreliable" witness
but more clearly a case of an unscrupulous prosecutor, of which the
Feds have proven over the years, they have in abundance.
John Fiorentino
am getting at...........
+++++++++++++++++++++
(Excerpts, quotes from Mr. Hoch)........
"Bugliosi's cross-examination produced one dramatic moment. First he
established that the surgeons did "most of the mundane jobs" usually done
by the technicians, but O'Connor insisted there was no brain to remove.
If this was so shocking, Bugliosi wondered, why didn't he tell the HSCA?
He seemed genuinely surprised when O'Connor said he had been "under orders
not to talk until that time." "Unfortunately, issues relating to these
orders were not pursued on the air. O'Connor, who was nervous, referred
to getting permission from the HSCA to talk to Navy brass, and also
indicated that the HSCA had not asked the right questions. The sequence
of events is unclear: Bugliosi referred to an hour-and-a-half interview
with the HSCA; I think the volumes cite only an "outside contact report"
(which was often based on a phone call) dated June 28, 1978, but that does
not preclude an earlier interview. The 1963 orders not to talk were not
modified until March 1978, when permission to talk with the HSCA was
reluctantly given. (Best Evidence, p. 608)"
++++++++++++++++++
Does anyone disagree with Hoch, or his cite from BE?
John F.
> Those on this news group who are placing their bet with Bugliosi's
> version of O'Connor are backing a losing proposition with little
> credibility.
>
> DSL
>
Ritchie Linton
> I want to throw this out there for some comments, and then I'll post what I
> am getting at...........
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>
> (Excerpts, quotes from Mr. Hoch)........
>
> "Bugliosi's cross-examination produced one dramatic moment. First he
> established that the surgeons did "most of the mundane jobs" usually done
> by the technicians, but O'Connor insisted there was no brain to remove.
> If this was so shocking, Bugliosi wondered, why didn't he tell the HSCA?
> He seemed genuinely surprised when O'Connor said he had been "under orders
> not to talk until that time." "Unfortunately, issues relating to these
> orders were not pursued on the air. O'Connor, who was nervous, referred
> to getting permission from the HSCA to talk to Navy brass, and also
> indicated that the HSCA had not asked the right questions. The sequence
> of events is unclear: Bugliosi referred to an hour-and-a-half interview
> with the HSCA; I think the volumes cite only an "outside contact report"
> (which was often based on a phone call) dated June 28, 1978, but that does
> not preclude an earlier interview. The 1963 orders not to talk were not
> modified until March 1978, when permission to talk with the HSCA was
> reluctantly given. (Best Evidence, p. 608)"
> ++++++++++++++++++
>
> Does anyone disagree with Hoch, or his cite from BE?
Actually the citation comes from evidence reproduced from the HSCA
Report.It took the intervention of the Secretary of Defense at the
time(Harold Brown) to get the 'gag'order withdrawn=the correspondence is
all a matter of record in NARA.ADDED to this we have the HSCA recording
rather dryly that they found the destruction of military records
"troublesome".I am sure the rest of us can all add, which is why Helms of
the CIA testified to the HSCA that the file(s) on Oswald were a
"responsibilty of the military Establishment" in the first place.Jerry,
Dolan and et.al. having given up on dispute contrary in face of clear
testimony.You are just blowing smoke if you think the 'gag'order is not a
matter of record=and we are all capable of the addition that leads to the
agency responsible=there is not a single document anywhere that says the
CIA knew anything about Oswald as a marksman is there?
RJ
Chad Zimmerman
Okay, fine...faked for photographs. But, the question had to do with
Lifton's assertion of surgical alteration before the Bethesda autopsy.
Is there a mortician or any other skilled person that could cause such
massive alterations that would go unnoticed by the autopsy crew?
Chad
Ricky Tobias
wrote:
Yes. I think I could create wounds that would fool many autopsy crews and
certainly the lay persons at the autopsy. The problem is how does one
know that the autopsy crew will be inexperienced and will not call in real
experts who will not be fooled? If one is to alter the body they must
also control the autopsy crew and especially the photographer and
radiologist. Morticians are skilled in hiding wounds from the viewing
public. They are not skilled at making an entry wound look like an exit
and an exit look like an entry nor in identifying which is which. This is
something a forensic pathology professor might attempt for a class. I
doubt that anyone could create a wound that would fool me after a detailed
exam.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
GMcNally
<snip>
Ritchie,
>I am sure the rest of us can all add, which is why Helms of
> the CIA testified to the HSCA that the file(s) on Oswald were a
> "responsibilty of the military Establishment" in the first place.Jerry,
> Dolan and et.al. having given up on dispute contrary in face of clear
> testimony.
The fact is that Helms did not say those words. IOW, you have made up
the quote.
Helms entire HSCA testimony can be found at:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hscahelm.htm.
What Helms testified to is: an investigation following Oswald's defection
would not have been conducted by the CIA, but, by the Navy - as Oswald was
still a Marine at the time, albeit in inactive reserve status.
rcd...@gmail.com
KENNEDY'S BODY HAD SURGERY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY, AFTER THE BODY WAS STOLEN
FROM DALLAS, AN ILLEGAL THEFT. THE WARREN COMMISSION IS JUST A COVER-UP
FOR THE CIA'S INVOLVEMENT.
please see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4
Oswald had ties to the CIA, Ruby had ties to the CIA, the CIA hated
Kennedy for his not backing the Bay of Pigs, and then Kennedy shut down
the CIA when they continued to practice invading Cuba. Kennedy was against
the Vietnam War, which Lyndon Johnson and the CIA were for. Eisenhower
warned us to beware of the military industrial complex, these people are
deadly serious.
Anthony Marsh
autopsy. He saw the guaze packed into the head and just ASSuMED that it
was left over from the surgery done at Parkland.
I explained this to you before, David.
>> He remembered exactly how it was, and repeated it all over again--
>> the same basic facts--just as described in the HSCA document, and as
>> related to me in August 1979, on the phone; and then again on camera
>> in October 1980.
>>
>> Paul O'Connor is a truth teller. It is others who are attempting to
>> twist his account around, and pretend it is all false. It is they, not
>> O'Connor, who are promoting an urban legend.
>>
>> O'Connor saw some rather important things on the night of November 22.
>> That is why, within a day or so of the autopsy, he was ordered not to
>> talk--subject to court martial.
>>