Date: 10-21-92 (05:29) Number: 3464 of 4255 To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: JOHN DINARDO Read: (N/A) Subj: Part XVII, PACIFICA RADIO Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: US_JFKCONSPIR (193) Read Type: GENERAL (+) From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) Subject: Part XVII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 12:18:27 GMT I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station WBAI-FM (99.5) 505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl. New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (continuation) DAVID LIFTON: Now that is the evidence that something happened between Dallas and Bethdesda. And the consequence of that medical alteration -- if it occurred -- is that the Dallas doctors thought that something exited from the rear of the head. The Bethesda doctors thought that something entered from the rear and blew out the top. Did the doctors recognize [believe] it? Was this a perfect medical forgery? Absolutely not. They didn't recognize it because the FBI documents that I've obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the FBI wrote down what the doctors said. So if I'm correct, my interpretation not only goes to what happened on the body, but what happened in the room. In other words, to paraphrase the old question from Watergate: What did the doctors know, and when did they know it? Well, according to the FBI, the doctors IMMEDIATELY, and I stress, immmediately recognized that there had been surgery of the head area; namely in the top of the skull. That's what I think the record shows in this case. This is not some kind of a perfect crime! It's a very sloppy crime. I think that a special prosecutor ought to question these doctors who are still alive -- and they MUST be questioned before they pass on. I think that we would get some stunning new information about this case because I personally interviewed one of the FBI agents, and I know that he's going to stand behind his statement, contrary to a foolish affidavit, excerpted in some weird fashion and published by professor Blakey in a report in which they tried to make it appear that the FBI agents said that this was not true. So that's what happened in the area of the head. I believe that the configuration of the wounds was changed. Now, in the area of the neck we have a similar problem. We have a tracheotomy, supposedly, according to the sworn testimony of Doctor Malcolm Perry in Dallas, done through the neck wound. That tracheotomy, Doctor Perry told me in 1966, was two to three centimeters. And according to everybody there, it had neat edges -- neat edges as made with a knife. I would be more than willing to testify before any investigation that Perry told me that it was two to three centimeters, in 1966, and to offer my telephone interview tapes as evidence. In 1966, I interviewed all the doctors on this issue of the length of the tracheotomy incision. At the Dallas end of the line it was two to three centimeters; four, some of them said. There's one or two stragglers who say it was a little bit bigger. But Perry made the incision. He told me it was two to three centimeters. In the autopsy report, that thing is listed as six-and-a-half centimeters with widely gaping edges. And under oath, Humes said it was seven to eight centimeters. And it has, according to the autopsy report, widely gaping irregular edges. So that is the issue: that something happened to the throat wound between Dallas and Bethesda. Now, if it was an entry wound, as the Dallas doctors originally alleged and believed, if a bullet or fragment entered at the front of the throat and lodged, as most of them believed, at the top of the right lung, isn't it interesting that when the body was opened at Bethesda, where the Dallas doctors thought there was a bullet, the Bethesda doctors found a bloody bruise with a pyramid-shaped scar. That's circumstantial evidence, of course, but I think it's probative. So that's the situation. I believe that there was bullet extraction from the area of the throat too. All of this put together raises again this question of probability. Can all these doctors ..... can this pattern be an accident? Can we simply be looking at mistaken medical observations, mistaken FBI reports, mistaken observations of those who know what kind of casket was used? I think not! I think this is the kind of stuff that the can opener of a special prosecutor could pry wide open. GARY NULL: Okay. That's a good presentation. Now we're going to summarize here for a moment. What you're suggesting is that there is hard evidence, good documentation that the casket and the state of the President's body that left Dallas is not the same casket and state of the President's body that arrived in Bethesda. DAVID LIFTON: Right. There's not only a break in the chain-of-possession, but there is alteration of the evidence. GARY NULL: Alright. So they altered evidence. Now if this were put on trial, that would be a major issue. DAVID LIFTON: That would be a major allegation. I can also guide you a little bit, if you wish, into the way that the rebuttal would work so the reader can understand the nature of this problem. GARY NULL: Okay. I'm going to ask you to hold onto that thought because there's a lot more information. Now we're going to go, in just a few moments, over to our other guest, Doctor Cyril Wecht, on this issue. There is also the Leibeler Memorandum which I want to talk about. And I want to talk about some new information and the emergence of a new hypothesis. I want to talk about the Seibert and O'Neill Report. And I want to look at the X-rays and the photographs, and the allegations of Doctor John Ebersole, and some of the comments from the House Select Committee in 1978. Alright? We'll be doing that in a few moments. I do want to mention to our audience that three times a year, here on WBAI, non-commercial, public, free-access radio, part of the Pacifica Network, that we must take a break to do some fund-raising so that we can continue paying our bills. We're going to come back to our guests in about ten minutes and continue on with this information, presenting more documentation that the American Public has not been made privy to, but which it must in order to make reasonable judgments about the conclusions drawn by the Warren Commission; about the role that the media has played in the official position, and what this means. Yesterday, you heard us talk about the fact that various members of Organized Crime were implicated in this, and certain middle-level members, by name, of the CIA; certain members of the FBI, by name, such as Guy Banister; the pro and anti-Castro movements involving Oswald, and the fact that, up to this point, we cannot find evidence that Oswald was implicated in the assassination. It's so easy to have a single gunman, a single person, and end it there. But we CANNOT end it there if the evidence doesn't indicate that it Date: 10-21-92 (05:29) Number: 3465 of 4255 To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: JOHN DINARDO Read: (N/A) Subj: Part XVII, PACIFICA RADIO Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: US_JFKCONSPIR (193) Read Type: GENERAL (+) should be ended there. And it does not. And so we're looking hard, and we're looking where mainstream media either has chosen not to look, or has looked and chosen not to accept the evidence. (to be continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking. John DiNardo