(PART 1273)



(a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton...are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below--I stress "below"--the bullet wound?" She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx., from memory) December 10th, 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One", by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound. Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come.

(b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post's editorial deadline for that mid-December issue) or earlier? I don't have to emphasize the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence. But the exact date of [the] interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963 Saturday Evening Post article. Now..."flash forward" several years...

(c) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise--that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes). So Breslin's article in the mid-December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint [of] what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963.

(d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound. But...there is still more...

(e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find: From Dr. Carrico's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry" (WCE 392 [17 WCH 4]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected...the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 392 [17 WCH 6]).

(f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.).

(g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quite a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch).

OK...now, let's move on...

(h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound?

In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound? (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess...although I'm not sure on this last point).

(i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wound and (b) if he had made no incision at all.

Which brings me to the next point...

(j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview--date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory). At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis. And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred.

(k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart. He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate." I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo. Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate." All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi-page memo.

(l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino. More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move. There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip. As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves. Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember...what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not.)

Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart. Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor. "David, this man is telling you the truth! This is important!" And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid". Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid". He did not say "inviolate"."

Now how do you know that? was Pat's response.

And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. It's right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid". He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate"."

Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's book. But there the matter rested, for years. Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not. But...

(m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that--around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews--we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did. Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in [Media, Pennsylvania]. One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Groden later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior. Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But, putting all that aside (and that may hold the key to the missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate." Again: "inviolate"...crystal clear, on the tape.

(n) Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989) was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story--A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film. It's an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence. Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound.

(O) So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications. Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that:

(1) It was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,

(2) That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and...

(3) That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should We Now Believe The Warren Report"-1968) was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note...

(4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--it's right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration. Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows.

My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision. He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade). And then the following events occurred:

(a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (Sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision "below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound).

(b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9);

(c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc.

On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369)

If I'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner, but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of "higher authority." That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade.

In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988.


Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, it's my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD.


I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread. The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue. And: if they knew...what were they told? How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction? Again, what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them?

Stay tuned.


2/27/2018 - 3 P.M.

Orange County, California


At some point during the life of the HSCA (as I recall), Robert Groden, along with a Baltimore reporter (name I don't recall just now) took the autopsy photos and showed them to Dr. Perry, who (at that time) was practicing medicine in New York City. Perry looked at the "stare of death" photo, shook his head from side to side, and said words to the effect that that's not the way he left the wound. Specifically, he said to Groden (as related to me and Pat Valentino in a filmed interview at Groden's home in [Pennsylvania]): "I left the wound inviolate."

Groden went on to say that the quote stood out (for him) because, although he knew what the word ("inviolate") meant, he had never heard it used in conversation before.


I guess Mr. Lifton thinks there's a whole lot of lying going on in the interviews embedded below....


Skip to about the 10:00 mark in the McClelland interview above to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63. [Also see this related article.]

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009


In the 1967 interview above, Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".

And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was:

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had really said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?


Sure sounds like "invalid" to me. And only "invalid" would make sense in context.

Kudos to DVP.

(I will be amazed if David L. posts an audio clip where Dr. Perry says "violate" and it also makes sense in its context.)


What? Perry is saying "inviolate" with a southern drawl. Not "invalid".


Despite the fact that "inviolate" makes NO SENSE at all given the context of Perry's statement to CBS' Eddie Barker, it doesn't really matter anyway (as I said before)....because Perry told Eddie Barker just SECONDS earlier that he "cut through the wound". So David Lifton's "no incision at all" theory is moribund (at best).

Or maybe Mr. Lifton can now dredge up a theory that has Dr. Perry lying through his teeth when he told Eddie Barker and the CBS audience that he cut through the wound, but then (just seconds later) Perry decided to tell the truth when he uttered the alleged "inviolate" word. But even that crazy theory makes no sense because the word "inviolate" MAKES NO SENSE in the sentence in question that was spoken by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry.


Doesn't the 1979 Robert Groden interview make it clear what he means by "inviolate"?


Well, Micah, after listening again to Dr. Perry's remarks to Eddie Barker of CBS News in 1967, and realizing that the word "inviolate" doesn't make a bit of logical sense whatsoever in the context in which he uttered it, I'd have to wonder if perhaps Perry actually said the word "invalid" during those two other occasions when people are claiming Perry utilized the word "inviolate" too (in 1963 in the presence of Dr. Stewart and in 1977 for Robert Groden).

When listening over and over again to Perry's 1967 CBS interview, I think a case can be made for Perry saying either word ("invalid" or "inviolate"). It's hard to tell. But since "inviolate" doesn't make any logical sense in that '67 interview, I have to believe he was saying "invalid" instead. And I would think even a hardline conspiracy theorist who sees liars and plots everywhere he looks would have to agree with me on this one. Otherwise, you've got no choice but to paint Dr. Malcolm Perry as an idiot. Or, as an alternative, you'd have to believe that Dr. Perry just had no idea what the word "inviolate" means, even though he was using that word repeatedly in the conversations he was having with different people. Which, again, would bring the word "idiot" to the forefront. And I don't think anybody even in Conspiracy Fantasy Land really believes that Dr. Perry was an idiot. And I certainly have no reason in the world to think Dr. Perry was a big fat liar either.


In the 1966/67 audio clip with Dr. Perry, please mind about 2 seconds gap elapsing between a swallowed "rendered" and the next word "inv....", with an "uh". Does this look natural when other parts of the clip contain a fluent speech? In my view, Dr. Perry was in severe distress when saying this.


Conspiracists will try to find conspiracy and "distress" and cover-up everywhere they look. It's just their nature. But in my view, Dr. Perry was merely trying to find the right word there. And he came up with "invalid". How many times in your life have you started a sentence and then reached a point where you groped for an appropriate word to finish your thought? Hundreds of times? Thousands?


We (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.”


That's not what Dr. Perry said in his 1967 CBS interview at all. Why are you twisting the quote? Perry never told Eddie Barker that he left the wound INTACT and UNDISTURBED (i.e., "inviolate")! He told him exactly the opposite! As I quoted (verbatim) previously, Perry said this (audio below):

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

And even if the word spoken by Perry there is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you (or anyone else) possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all?

If he actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any logical sense to you, Mr. Lifton?


When I was in Groden’s home, and watching multiple replays of that part of the CBS tape, it was clear to me that someone had attempted to monkey with the tape, because the audio was indistinct, and the lip movements of Perry were definitely out of sync with what he was supposedly saying: that he “left the wound invalid.”

It wasn’t too long before I put “two plus two” together, and realized that someone had attempted to deceive the author (Steve White) into believing that Perry had said “I rendered the wound invalid” when in fact he had said “I left the wound inviolate.”

The alteration of the transcript plus the blatant and easily observable attempt to fiddle with the audio made clear that this was all quite deliberate, and someone had tried to deceive the author and to hide from the pubic the truth about what Perry had said.


I just looked once again at this video version of Perry's '67 interview, and it's very clear that the audio and the video are perfectly "in sync" with one another. There is nothing unusual or sinister about it whatsoever. And, no, I didn't "monkey" around with that video file prior to posting it so that the audio and video portions would match perfectly, which they do. Dr. Perry's mouth movements are in perfect sync with the audio that we are hearing. And why David Lifton thinks otherwise is the true mystery.

Of course, it's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world.

Bottom Line (as usual) --- A conspiracy theorist is making a huge mountain out of something that doesn't even rise to the level of an anthill.


Well, this is certainly interesting.

It appears that the 1967 CBS interview audio has two versions, one with Dr. Perry saying he "left the wound inviolate" and the other with him saying he "rendered it invalid." ("Inviolate" and "invalid" sound the same, but can be differentiated via he context in which the word is used.)


There aren't two different "versions" of the CBS video/audio at all. David Lifton just misquoted what Dr. Perry said in the ONE and only version. Lifton is just wrong when he put these words in quotes --- "I left the wound inviolate". We know Perry never said those exact words because of this video I posted previously. In that video, Perry's lips match the audio perfectly. How can anyone doubt that fact---even David S. Lifton?

And the words "I left" in Lifton's version of Perry's quote are very important too. And those are words--"I left"--that Dr. Perry never uttered in that CBS statement at all. Lifton simply misquoted Perry.

The question that remains is --- Did David Lifton deliberately misquote Perry when it comes to the 1967 CBS interview? Or was DSL merely attempting to recall the exact quote from memory and incorrectly (but innocently) put the words "I left" in Dr. Perry's mouth by mistake?


A very good post, David. This is where the ["Double Oswald"] crowd gets themselves in trouble, taking 3rd and 4th generation hearsay testimony, mistakes, a scribble on 50 year old papers and blow it into a full-blown ridiculous theory.


And please note how David Lifton has completely ignored these comments repeated below (the first one made by me, and the second uttered by Dr. McClelland, who must be very high on Mr. Lifton's "Liars For The Rest Of Their Lives" list....

"And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does." -- David R. Von Pein; February 28, 2018

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert N. McClelland; 2009


Note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you, and much of your "argument" about the JFK case, is going to end up in the dustbin of history; and this matter of the throat wound, and "rendered it invalid" versus "inviolate" (and the business of two transcripts) is a perfect example.

I do not know whether someone at CBS messed with the audio, and created--shall we say--a "modified" audio record (for the benefit of author Steve White), but I can damn well tell you that there are two different transcripts of Part 2 of that show, because I had them both in front of me, back in 1989, and was astonished by this discovery. So you're behaving like a fool if you wish to believe that I made this up.


First of all, Groden showed us his high quality copy of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry by Eddie Barker. Pat and I, sitting in separate chairs, were watching that intently. Remember: we had just come from interviewing Dr. Stewart, two days before in Tennessee. And Dr. Stewart, repeating what he had told me on the telephone in 1982 (as I recall) and perhaps sensing my skepticism, said something like: "Hell, what Perry told me he said on national TV, in that CBS Special that was broadcast back in 1967! Go watch that TV special. It's right there! You will see he said 'inviolate'!"

I was polite, but skeptical.

Then, two days later, we were in Groden's home. We asked Groden if he had that interview, and he said that he did, and we asked if we could see it. He agreed. So that led to the unforgettable scene of Groden putting the cassette into the player, and perhaps even doing something else, while Pat and I watched the show. When we got to that moment in the tape, and when we heard the word "inviolate," we both rose up out of our chairs, and exclaimed, "What?!!!"

Groden wanted to know what the fuss was all about, and we declined to tell him, because we had not yet interviewed him, on camera, and wanted to have that "first tell" on camera, and unrehearsed. So we just stayed mum, but told him that we had something special, and would tell him what it was once we were on camera.


Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview?

It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview.

Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton:

Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all? If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.?

Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word ("invalid/inviolate")?....

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound..."

Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct?


Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things. (Click Here to see one of the transcripts. That one says "inviolate" [page 9].)

But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever.


A side note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you and much of your views will end up in the dustbin of history. You're obviously a good collector, but your behavior on the Internet has been that of a propagandist, spewing disinformation and misinformation to new generations interested in the JFK case; and, in general, the world at large. You once said that your interest in the JFK case started when you read my book. What a shame that you're going to end up with a tawdry legacy, one marked by so many episodes of such intellectual dishonesty.


3/2/2018 - 4:45 p.m. PST

Orange County, California


Only two words are needed as a reply to Mr. Lifton's dramatic and patently absurd soliloquy above. Those two words:

Pot and Kettle.


DVP: You wrote:

"Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview? It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview."

My response: It is not in my interest to “ignore” (much less “totally ignore”) the “context of Dr. Perry’s complete statement in the ’67 interview” (which, keep in mind, is the broadcast date. I believe the interview with Barker was conducted in late 1966). My short response to your criticism is: it depends what you mean by “the context”. I am well aware that if one restricts “the context” to that particular sentence in that transcript (or in the audio excerpt) then the statement that Perry said he “rendered it inviolate” makes no sense.

However, if one takes into account three other times where the word “inviolate” would apply (Dave Stewart, that day and weekend; Breslin, on 11/23, when he said he performed the trach “below” the wound; and then Robert Groden, in 1977 [“I left the wound inviolate”], and if one enlarges one’s vision to encompass the possibility that this tape has been altered to conceal what Perry actually said—especially if he uttered the word “inviolate” in the context in which (for example) he used it with Groden—then the presence of “inviolate” on that audio track can (and should) be viewed as trace evidence of what he said; specifically, that he may well have said, to Barker, something that was either similar (or identical) with what he had said to Stewart, or Breslin (11/23), or--years later (1977)--would say to Robert Groden. (when shown the Bethesda autopsy photo). Why is that so difficult to understand?

As Groden pointed out (to me, and to Pat V., in 1989) when we interviewed him on camera, and when he described his 1977 meeting with Perry, “inviolate” is a rather unusual word. For it to appear on that audio track suggests to me that he (Perry) used it on that occasion (i.e., at the time of his interview with Eddie Barker), in the same manner in which he used it on at least three other occasions. You (apparently) want to ignore the importance of this word on the grounds that, when preceded by “rendered it”, the sequence of three words ("rendered it inviolate") makes no sense. My reaction is decidedly different. I argue that, by taking into account the other times this word was uttered by Perry, it is not unreasonable to infer that we are dealing with an altered audio record.

Why do I say "altered audio record"?

Because: on the occasion that we filmed Groden in 1989, we (all three of us) could readily see that visually, what Dr. Perry was saying was clearly “out of sync” with the sound, and that disparity was our justification (our “probable cause,” if you will) for believing that this audio record had been altered. END OF EXPLANATION

DVP: "Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton: Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all?"

DSL RESPONSE: I am not arguing that the three-word phrase "rendered it inviolate" makes sense. To the contrary: I agree that--viewed in isolation--it does not make sense. As explained (or at least implied) above: The choice appears to be either: (a) That Perry doesn't know how to use the English language, and is given to making nonsensical utterances; or (b) that the audio record was altered. Based on the other times that he used the word ("inviolate") , it would appear that something is missing. Assuming Perry actually said "inviolate", he used it in the context that, when he performed the tracheotomy, he didn't touch the bullet wound; i.e., he "left the [bullet] wound inviolate."

And perhaps I should add this other observation: to use the word "inviolate" almost has a defensive quality to it--i.e., that someone had accused Perry of (without meaning to) having altered the wound; and he was responding (in effect) by saying "No, I didn't do that. I left the wound 'inviolate.'"

Remember: Dr. Dave Stewart told me that there was a problem or kerfuffle (late that night) at Parkland, when Perry was informed (via a phone call from someone at Bethesda, and I'll bet it was SS Agent Kellerman) that there was a "problem" at the autopsy (or "confusion") because of what "he" (i.e., Perry) had done. So he was at pains to deny it; to say, in effect, "No, you're wrong, I didn't do that." And then came: "I left the wound inviolate". As I said, that is my interpretation of the context in which Perry employed (or should I say "deployed") that word. It was in the context of him defending himself against a charge (even if only implied) that what he had done had caused confusion (or "was causing confusion") at the Bethesda end of the line. END OF EXPLANATION

DVP: "If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.?"

DSL RESPONSE: No, of course not. I understsand the basic vocabulary, and why these three words ("rendered it inviolate") don't fit together. But again, I refer you to my lengthy answer above. I’m perfectly aware that “rendered it inviolate”—if Perry actually said that—makes no sense. But the word "inviolate" can be heard, quite distinctly, and so the question is: in what context was it uttered?

I believe that the key to the proper interpretation of that word depends on the context; which, specifically in this case, comes down to focusing on the two words preceding it (“rendered it”) which then results in the three-word phrase: "rendered it inviolate."

If Perry actually said “rendered it inviolate,” then—agreed—that would make no sense. So how are we to properly interpret this nonsensical phrase? My suggestion: we go to the existing history of how--on other occasions--Perry used that (rather unusual) word.

Based on other occasions in which he used that (rather unusual) word, I believe it is not unreasonable to infer that he used that word in conjunction with the phrase (which functioned as a prefix, of sorts): "I left the wound..." resulting in the sentence "I left the wound inviolate." It seems to me unreasonable, based on Perry's own "linguistic history" (if I may coin a phrase) to assume that he would use “inviolate” in order to say the opposite --i.e., that by not cutting through the wound, he rendered it "inviolate." What might be plausible (but rather a clumsy use of language) would be if he meant to say that by cutting through the wound, he (by "cutting") had “rendered it invalid." (And that is what the transcript published in the back of the Steve White book states).

So what is one to make of this linguistic conundrum? It comes down to whether this audio track was tampered with or not. You (apparently) are operating on the assumption that it's genuine, that it was not altered. I react to this linguistic puzzle quite differently. I believe (and all three of us believed, based on the way Perry's lips were moving quite obviously in a manner that made no sense based on the words being uttered) that the tape had been altered. That we were viewing a clumsily altered audio record. And that’s the reason all of us took Groden ’s tape to that rather expensive “sound shop” in either Philadelphia or Trenton, spent an hour or two there, and prepared video excerpts to document our suspicions.

You have responded to our action by saying (in effect): "It wasn't altered. It was your playback machine. Here, let me show you my copy. It plays perfectly." Do you really believe that you producing your "copy"--in 2018--is an answer to what we experienced back in June 1989, and which drove us to go to that audio house, and to spend good money to prepare video samples for further study?

To recap: I’m not being at all unreasonable in my beliefs. On several occasions, Perry said that he “left the wound inviolate.” He said that to Groden in 1977; and Stewart says that's the word he used on 11/22 and over that weekend. And the next day he told Breslin that he performed the tracheotomy "below" the bullet wound. Note what Perry did not say. He never said, on any of these occasions, that he “rendered it inviolate.” He said he “left it inviolate.” And its precisely for that reason that I suspect that the tape was altered. Moreover, the Steve White book, in its transcript (located at the back) uses the word “invalid,” so that is either an innocent transcriber error (which I doubt) or a deliberate "editorial" correction. In other words, its my belief that someone (either Eddie Barker or Dan Rather) lobbied with Steve White that "here's what the tape sounds like, so you should correct that transcript you are publishing to reflect what Perry apparently meant to say." That's the sort of thing that I believe took place, and which explains the way the Steve White version of the CBS transcript reads: it is identical in every way to the "official" CBS transcript except for that one phrase(!).


Let me add one other observation: I do not believe Perry would have simply testified falsely about having made an incision through the throat wound--if he did not--unless, prior to that testimony, he was given private assurances --by "higher authority" that he should testify in that fashion. In other words, I do not believe that Perry would testify falsely in March 1964, before Chief Justice Warren, because of an unpleasant phone call he had received late on the night of November 22, 1963. There must have been more to it than that. In Final Charade, I will offer evidence of who was the "higher authority" and how that occurred in other situations as well.

Perry's non-response to the unfolding controversy has always intrigued me. He claims he never read any of the books and never followed any aspect of the controversy. More on that, too, in Final Charade.

DVP: "Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word (“invalid/inviolate")?...."

DSL RESPONSE: As I said above, I think that the two-word phrase “rendered it”, preceding the word “inviolate”, results in a three-word phrase that is nonsensical. Hence, my conclusion: unless Perry was uttering nonsense, the audio tape was altered. END OF RESPONSE

DVP [Quoting Dr. Perry]: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound..."

DSL RESPONSE: I am not sure what to make of this statement. (And by the way: What does Perry mean by "or why"?) The reason I believed it was very likely not true was because Stewart told the Nashville Banner in (I believe) November 1967, that Perry did not have to make an incision. But just maneuvered the trach tube into the throat, using the pre-existing bullet hole as his orifice of entry. I am endeavoring to retrieve that story, as published, in the Nashville Banner. If I obtain a copy, I will post it--or the text of what it says--on this thread. END OF RESPONSE

DVP: "Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct?"

DSL RESPONSE: Yes, DVP. We've (already) been through all that. Those words do not make sense, and that's precisely why I believe that the audio tape must have been altered. (If someone who knows mathematics is caught on tape saying "Two plus three equals seven", what are we to think?) It all comes down to the validity of the audio tape. Based on the other statements (already cited) that Perry made, I don’t trust the audio tape. You apparently do. I find this odd, but maybe I shouldn't. After all, despite all the Dallas doctors who insist there was a blow-out at the back of the head, you revel in posting a back-of-the head autopsy photograph which, you blithely claim, depicts the reality, whereas just about all the credible Dallas medical witnesses claim it does not. (Sometimes I think you have an affinity for falsified evidence. You just love to roll around in that stuff, the way, on a farm. . . oh, I'd rather not have to complete that sentence.)

DVP: "Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things."

DSL RESPONSE: I don’t believe this is a matter of interpretation. For example: if Steve White had an audio tape on which he clearly heard (or believed he heard) the word “inviolate,” then he should have said so in his book; he should have spelled out the problem, and discussed it. And not just changed the word (or three words), in his transcript, and said nothing about the implications. That's why I suspect that, one way or another, this was (in effect) "foisted" on him; i.e., that he was deceived. END OF RESPONSE

DVP: "But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever."

DSL RESPONSE: No, DVP, I do not subscribe to your idea. When this whole affair is viewed in proper context, then (if we had a Special Prosecutor in this case) that Prosecutor would have asked (behind closed doors, of course): Who the heck altered the body? (And given the plethora of evidence that the body was covertly intercepted and altered, that you, and your peculiar ideas that nothing is wrong with the evidence would be subject to considerable ridicule). I'll tell you what such a (hypothetical) Special Prosecutor would be interested in: such an investigation would be interested in the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, on November 2 and November 3, 1966; and especially the second one where, confronting him with the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area" (which he knew nothing about, until that day), he exclaimed "I'm not responsible for their reports!" and then, just a bit later in that same conversation, he exclaimed: "I'd like to know by whom it was done. . and when . . and where!" (See Chapter 8 of B.E., where all this is described in detail). Surely such an investigation might have put Humes and asked: "Commander Humes, why did you say those things? And what did you mean by "it" when you blurted out, with considerable vehemence, "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where?!" So that's the context in which to properly view the possible falsification of this particular audio record.

So no, DVP, I do not agree. Perry's use of clumsy language cannot be discarded or set aside in the manner that you are wont to do. To proceed in that fashion, you have to ignore the multiple occasions in which Perry used the word “inviolate,”—preceded by the words “I left the wound” etc. What you seem to he doing, DVP, is cherry-picking when it comes to context; to choosing the context (or “defining the context” if I may coin a term) in such a way that it supports your interpretation.

I say: Let’s enlarge the context and take into account the full picture; and that includes all the times that Perry used the word “inviolate” to fully understand what he meant when he used that word. And also, to understand the (wider) context, at Bethesda that night, in which this problem developed. END OF RESPONSE


To David Lifton:

Thank you for your (ultra)-detailed reply above.

Some additional thoughts....

Since you are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)


Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?....

"...cutting through the wound..."

Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?


As anyone with a working computer can easily see when looking at the video below (not the audio clip I created, but the FULL VIDEO version of Dr. Perry's CBS interview, which I've linked to previously in this discussion as well), the audio and video portions of that interview are NOT "out of sync" at all. The syncing is just fine, and we can SEE Dr. Perry's mouth form the words that he is uttering. We can SEE him speaking the words "cutting through the wound" and "rendered" and the key word which begins with the letters "inv...".

Therefore, David L., how can you still maintain that the video/audio has been "altered"? Do you REALLY think that someone in circa 1966-1967 was able to perfectly and seamlessly "alter" Dr. Perry's words AND ON-CAMERA MOUTH MOVEMENTS so as to fool all Americans who were watching that CBS News special that night in June of '67?

Come on, David, you can't seriously believe that tape was altered....can you? (Especially since, as I mentioned before, the END RESULT of such "alteration" would be a statement being made by Dr. Perry that could only make him look like a fool and an idiot.)

An additional note (just “for the record”)....

Prior to getting involved in this discussion this week, I had watched and listened to that 1967 CBS interview with Dr. Perry at least a dozen times in my lifetime (probably more), and when it gets to the part where Perry says that "inv..." word we're now discussing, I have never once thought that Perry was saying the word "inviolate" there. Not once. I always have interpreted that utterance as being the word "invalid". Every time.

Now, perhaps Mr. Lifton will fire back at me with something like: Well, DVP, since the word "invalid" is a word that makes the most sense in that sentence, then you probably have trained your ears to hear what you think makes the most sense. But Perry really said "inviolate" there.

Okay. That might be a fair argument for someone like David Lifton to make. But I have a hard time believing that you, DSL, are so stubborn in your beliefs that you would refuse to admit that there's even a possibility that the "inv..." word being spoken by Dr. Perry in the CBS interview could be the word "invalid" instead of "inviolate". You don't think the word could possibly be "invalid"? There's no chance of that at all in your mind? Really? Listen again. Here's the video (again):


Let's also have a look at what Dr. Perry told the ARRB in August of 1998 concerning the tracheotomy he performed on President Kennedy (emphasis is my own):

MR. GUNN -- "Could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?"

DR. PERRY -- "I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon, but my reply to that was that it was big enough. There are only two medical emergencies, airway and bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and [they were?] quite large with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound, I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea."


As for David Von Pein, much of his commentary will be proven false, and unnecessarily insulting; and, as I have said, he and his views will, to a large extent, end up in what Leon Trotsky called "the dustbin of history."

But (and as I have also noted), DVP is a good collector, and we should all give him credit for that. Bottom line: DVP is very good at "collecting the dots." He just isn't particularly adept at "connecting" them.

Stay tuned. . .


P.S.: In my remarks (above), I am referring to the way DVP has treated my work. As for DVP's ongoing "debate" with DiEugenio, that's an entirely different matter. More often than not, his arguments in that debate have significant validity.


DVP has repeatedly asserted that his copy [of the CBS interview with Dr. Perry] shows no audio/video disparity, as if that is the final word. He even goes so far as to imply that the problem was, perhaps, Groden's equipment. None of this is valid, and here's why:

a) Our work was done with a high quality copy (Groden "obtains" only the best) and on his high quality and very well maintained equipment. (He will eat dog food for a week (if he has to), but he will buy the best equipment available.)

b) We studied the "problem" at a professional audio house, and on high quality equipment--and it was obviously present on that equipment, too; it was readily visible. Think about it: how could we record "video samples" if it wasn't present?

c) Our source was Groden's copy, obtained back in the period 1967-1975, or thereabouts, and there was no Internet then.

d) DVP's copy, as far as I know, was made years later, and in the "age of the Internet" and very likely was downloaded, from some site, via the Internet.

(And I'd like DVP to either confirm that this is so (and perhaps specify the site of origin, and the year of the download), or if he actually purchased a tape from a CBS library, to provide details (i.e., the year, the transfer modality, etc).)

What I can say for certain is that all of us were dealing with this problem, and the cause wasn't the equipment in Groden's home. And by "all of us" I mean Pat (who is an audio expert), myself (an engineering graduate and a former Ham Radio operator [K2HKC], who has built transmitters, etc); and our film crew, who had competent technicians, and their own equipment.

So one either has to entertain the notion that Groden's original tape was defective, at that particular point (and only at that particular point), in the entire program; or that there has been an "improvement" in the original from which Groden's copy was made, and the time that DVP purchased his copy from CBS, or made his download, if he was able to do it more recently, via the Internet.


It's much more likely that the audio/video on Groden's videotape was out of sync, rather than the problem being due to any of Groden's VHS players (or any other playback devices that were being used to play the tape at any other location).

And it's very likely that Groden's ENTIRE TAPE was out of sync, as opposed to JUST the small excerpt with Dr. Perry. Or, if not the entire tape, it seems likely that at least a larger portion than just the Perry interview segment was/is out of sync.

Here's what I said earlier on the out-of-sync matter (just for the record--again)....

"It's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world." -- DVP; 3/2/2018

After looking into this "syncing" issue a little more today, I discovered that there are, indeed, copies of Part 2 of the CBS special ("A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report") that are out of sync on the Internet. This YouTube video provides one example of a poor-quality (only 240p) version of Part 2 of the 4-part program (skip up to 22:40 to see the controversial segment with Dr. Perry), and you can see that the video portion is running just a fraction of a second ahead of the audio. (And, btw, the other three parts in the CBS series that were uploaded by the same person at YouTube are also out of sync in the same manner as Part 2.)

And since David L. asked for the background data and statistics concerning where I obtained my copy of the 1967 CBS program, I will offer up that dry-as-dust and boring information now:

In 2002, I was in the process of obtaining a lot of JFK-related VHS tapes and DVDs, and I started trading some of these materials (by snail mail) with a friend who then lived in Illinois. One of the items that I obtained in a trade with this individual was a VHS cassette containing the 1967 four-part CBS "Warren Report" series.

But, unfortunately, the four parts that I acquired in 2002 on VHS tape were in very poor quality (recorded in EP mode) and were not in color. Well, actually, I think the source material was in color, but due to the fact the tapes had been copied so many times, the quality had deteriorated so much that the color was almost completely lost and washed away due to degradation. So the tapes I got back then were, essentially, in black-and-white.

So I wanted to get some better quality copies for my files and websites. And in 2011, I found some good color copies via another e-mail acquaintance (named Mike, who maintains this YouTube channel). But the copies I obtained from him at that time weren't on VHS tape or DVD. These were digital computer files (in the Windows Media Video [.wmv] file format).

And so I arranged for Mike to send me the files via a file sharing service called ADrive.com. He sent me the download links by e-mail, one at a time, and I then downloaded the files to my computer in February and early March of 2011, where the files still reside today. (Although the computer I have now is not the exact same one that I had in 2011 when I first downloaded the files. My current Dell computer is one that I obtained [via Amazon] on October 30, 2012, which, ironically, was the exact same day that my brother travelled to Dealey Plaza in Dallas and took this video and these still pictures of the Plaza. That's way more info than anyone needed, but I just threw it in as a friendly bonus.) :-)

Here are some of the e-mails I sent to the person (Mike) who ultimately sent me the high-quality copies of the CBS program:

"Would there be any way to do the '67 Warren Report special that way (from your raw wmv files)? I never told you this, but the second batch of DVDs of the Warren Report CBS show that you were kind enough to send me last year would not play or transfer properly, so I have still not been able to get a good color copy of that program for any of my video websites. I was wondering how big your wmv file(s) is on that show? Or do you still have the wmv saved? I have no idea, but maybe U-Drive can support it." -- DVP; February 19, 2011

"Thanks a lot, Mike! It downloaded perfectly. A very good-looking color copy indeed. I am grateful to you for providing it." -- DVP; February 19, 2011

"Hi Mike, Sorry to hear about more trouble with the CBS files. Damn things. It's a curse! I'm not meant to have them, I guess. It MUST be a conspiracy organized by Jim Garrison's ghost! It's obvious! :)" -- DVP; March 1, 2011

"Hi Mike, FYI---I've now successfully downloaded all 4 parts of the CBS program that you provided. Thank you very much for your persistent efforts in making usable copies of these programs available to me (and to others through Duncan's forum, and your site too). I greatly appreciate your efforts. The CBS shows look and sound very good too. Many regards, David V.P." -- DVP; March 7, 2011


Now, since the four parts of the CBS special that my e-mail acquaintance sent me in 2011 are "in sync" with respect to the video matching the audio tracks, one of three things happened (and I've been trying as hard as I can to recall which of these three things occurred, but unfortunately I cannot remember):

1. The files that my e-mail associate sent to me in 2011 were already "in sync" before he ever sent them to me.

2. The files were out-of-sync and my e-mail associate, Mike, fixed the problem with video editor software prior to sending me the "fixed" files.

3. The files were out-of-sync even after I received them from my e-mail associate and then I myself fixed the syncing problem using the video editor on my computer [Windows Movie Maker] in 2011. (And such a glitch is quite simple to fix with even a low-end video editor like Windows Movie Maker [WMM]. I've fixed such audio problems on many of my videos with the WMM software, mainly because having the video and audio out of sync is extremely aggravating and annoying, IMO. So lots of times I will just go to WMM and fix it myself. But I can't remember whether I did that for the 1967 CBS programs or not.)

My best guess:

#2 is the correct answer to this mini-mystery. #1 is also very possible as well; but #3 is the least likely option. And the reason I say that is because if I myself had fixed the syncing glitch, I almost certainly would have also created custom "title cards" at the same time for each of the 4 parts of the CBS special. And my copies of the four-part special [linked below] do not have any text titles on them at all (which would indicate "Part 1", "Part 2", etc.).


The video and audio are in sync for my copy of the 1967 CBS interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry. Regardless of WHO it was who fixed the audio glitch, we can see by way of Perry's mouth movements via an "in sync" copy of the segment of the program in question that Dr. Perry IS SAYING WHAT THE AUDIO TRACK INDICATES HE IS SAYING.

In a nutshell --- It is my opinion that the "monkeying" and "altering" that David Lifton alleges with respect to the CBS tape never happened at all, and could have easily been disproven even back in 1989 (at the "audio house" in Philadelphia or Trenton that David Lifton spoke of in an earlier post) if someone would have taken the time to "line up" the video with the out-of-sync audio, which is something (as I stated before) that I myself have done with "glitchy" video files many times in the past ten years. And I'm certainly no "tech wizard" when it comes to computers.


I'm wondering if this on-demand commercial DVD-R release of the "CBS Inquiry" program (which came out in late 2013) suffers from any syncing issues? I don't own that DVD product. I never felt a need to purchase it, since I already have a high-quality version of all four parts on my computer already, with the original 1967 CBS-TV commercials included as well. In looking through the few reviews for the commercial DVD at Amazon.com, nobody mentions anything about any audio glitches, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. However, in the video excerpts of the program provided on that Amazon page I just linked above, the audio and video are perfectly synchronized.



Question for David Lifton....

Why do you think it is that Robert Groden chose not to write a single word in his 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" about the bombshell revelations that Dr. Malcolm Perry supposedly revealed to him in 1977?

According to the things I'm reading in this discussion, Perry told Groden in 1977 multiple things that should make a dedicated conspiracy believer like Robert Groden turn cartwheels over --- e.g., Perry saying he didn't cut through JFK's throat wound at all, plus the shaking of Perry's head from side to side in disgust as he was shown the Stare of Death autopsy photo, with Perry (allegedly) saying the wound in the photograph didn't look like the tracheotomy incision he made on the President's body on 11/22/63.

Those things should have been centerpieces of Mr. Groden's major "30th Anniversary" book release in 1993, wouldn't you think? And yet not only doesn't Groden say a single word in TKOAP about these things, he actually endorses the notion that Dr. Perry DID make his trach directly through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's neck. Here's what Groden wrote on page 76 of TKOAP:

"The President's throat wound has long been the subject of controversy. Was it an entrance or exit wound? Few medical personnel viewed the wound in its original state before it was obliterated by a tracheotomy procedure." -- Robert J. Groden; Page 76 of "The Killing Of A President" (1993)

It's utterly inconceivable to me that Bob Groden would endorse in his major book release of 1993 the fact that Dr. Perry did, indeed, perform the trach incision through the bullet hole in JFK's throat if he had direct information to the contrary that came out of the mouth of Dr. Perry himself while the two men were standing face-to-face in Dr. Perry's office sixteen years earlier.

What possible explanation could there be for Groden not shouting from the rooftops (and in his 1993 book), "Dr. Perry told me he never cut through the wound!", if Perry had, in fact, said that very thing to Groden's face in the year 1977? Did Groden just forget about his bombshell meeting with Perry in '77?



Your post marks the first time I have ever been aware of what Groden said on the subject of the throat wound (and the issue of the tracheotomy) in his 1993 book (The Killing of a President) which I always viewed, more or less, as a “picture book” and never really paid much attention to the rather skimpy [text]. But now I realize that that assessment was incorrect, at least insofar as this particular issue (the tracheotomy) is concerned.

In any event, the question you have posted is interesting and truly important, and deserves a thoughtful response. .... Whatever I say on the subject will end up being somewhat speculative because it necessarily deals with the psychology and general behavior of Groden, who I knew very well, and for a period of some 20 (or more) years starting around 1971. All of this is discussed in great detail in my 100-plus page essay “Pig on a Leash” (addressing issues of authenticity in the area of the Zapruder film, which I do not wish to deal with in this post), and which appears in the Fetzer anthology “Hoax” (2003). The relevance of that essay is not the Z film, but the detailed discussion of my 20-year history with Groden (1971-1991, approx.) and what I learned from that experience about him personally.

In the course of a quick file review, I came across the April 1990 Federal Express Receipt for the JFK autopsy photos which I sent to Groden at that time. That’s how he obtained the autopsy photos—from me. I gave them to him, gratis, because I never wanted to be accused of selling those materials to anyone for profit. Groden then promptly turned around and sold the photos to a tabloid (the National Enquirer, as I recall) for $50,000. The contract for that transaction was unearthed by a JFK researcher, provided to me, and I provided it to the lawyers involved in the OJ Trial. This led to a national broadcast in which TV journalist Nancy Grace was exclaiming, in outrage, “Robert Groden? Groden sold the autopsy photos to the National Enquirer!” etc.

I bring this up because that was just one example of the Groden story. In the period 1976-1979 (approx.), the HSCA employed Groden as a consultant, giving him access to an array of precious (and priceless) original materials. Today, both the original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are simply gone.

When the ARRB commenced its investigation (1994-1998), I was in very heavy contact with the two top lawyers, Marwell and Jeremy Gunn, since one of their jobs was to pursue the matter of the Zapruder film, in the area of authenticity. Through telephone and written communication, I made very clear my views that Robert Groden showed all the signs of kleptomania. Of particular importance is a 12 page 1996 letter (with numerous attachments) that I sent to Gunn, and which, no doubt, was useful in connection with the subpoena to Groden. During that sworn deposition, Groden denied, under oath, ever possessing various items that the signed contract that I provided (as an attachment) showed that he had sold (copies of) to me in June 1989, for the sum of $5,000!

All of this bears on the credibility of Groden, and his relationship with me. When I visited him at his home in late 1982, and he realized (because I showed him) that I had crystal clear black and white copies of the autopsy photographs, he was astounded, and green with envy. When (in 1978/79) he set out to write his “minority” report on the authenticity of the photos to the HSCA, I told him that I did not believe the pictures were photo composites, but that any fakery had been achieved by “reconstruction”–late at night, and at the time of autopsy. Groden believed otherwise, and showed me a draft of his report. It was poorly written, and I told him so. I said that although I didn’t agree with his view, it should be rewritten if it were to have any credibility. So I rewrote the part of his report dealing with the fakery of the autopsy photos, and which can be found (as I recall) in Volume 6 of the HSCA volumes. (I wrote the part of that report dealing with the back of the head).

Throughout that period, and when I would visit Groden at his home (then in Hopelawn, New Jersey) I concealed from him the entire content of my book, Best Evidence, which was contracted for in December 1978, and published in January 1981. I did so because he behaved like a juvenile “collector,” and I sensed that he couldn’t be trusted. I remember that one of his reactions, after publication, came down to this: “Why didn’t you tell me [about this]?” etc.


Do I believe what Robert Groden told me (and Pat Valentino)—on camera—in a lengthy and very detailed interview in June 1989, about what happened when he visited Dr. Perry in New York in 1977, and showed him (an HSCA copy) of the face-up (stare-of-death) autopsy photo? Absolutely. And remember (and as I believe I’ve already written on this thread): I spoke with the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden, and he confirmed Groden’s account. He remembered Perry shaking his head from side to side and saying that wasn’t the way he left it.

Did Groden play for us the Barker/Perry interview, and did both Pat and I hear “inviolate”? Yes, without question.

Was there a problem with the lip-sync etc., and did we all (Groden included) go to a audio house in Trenton (or Philadelphia) and give it further study? Yes, just as I described previously on this thread.

And did we interview Groden, extensively, and in detail, about his New York City visit with Dr. Perry? Yes, absolutely. On camera. And did Groden say what Perry said, and is it what I’ve reported? Yes.

So now, back to your question, DVP.

What happened between 1989 and 1993?

What happened such that—in writing the text for his 1993 book (probably written in early 1993)–Groden ignored what he told us (on camera, in 1989) and set forth (instead) the “conventional” version of Dr. Perry and the tracheotomy?

What happened was the relationship with the late Harrison Livingstone and the publication of High Treason.

Groden could not accept the fact that the throat wound was altered—on JFK’s body—without endorsing one of the major tenets of Best Evidence (see Chapter 11 of B.E., on the changed length and character of the trach incision, Dallas vs. Bethesda). Again, please note: Groden’s entire adult life was devoted to the thesis that the photographs (of the body) were altered—the photographs, but not the body itself. (At least this is the case with regard to JFK’s head wounds).


So now let’s go to 1993 ... Groden is writing some text for his “Killing of a President” book, and has had this big “Ooops!” moment: He cannot say that the throat wound was altered, without undermining his own thesis that it was “the pictures” that were altered, and not the body (!). (Livingstone has a similar problem. Much more of a researcher than Groden. As I learned, decades later, from examining correspondence in the Weisberg files at the Hood library, Livingstone personally interviewed the witnesses I did, confirms what they said, privately admits in private correspondence that I am correct, but continues to attack me in public, in the most vicious terms!)


GRODEN TODAY....(and for many years since the movie JFK)...

So Robert Groden now makes his “home” on the Grassy knoll, selling his wares, and using a car battery to run a Visa and Mastercard machine. And if someone asks him about DSL and B.E., he often parrots Livingstone’s line, and says that I am a fraud. I know because I periodically check, when friends of mine visit Dallas (and, of course, the Dealey Plaza area, where Groden can often be found, encamped with his wares).

He has been arrested over 50 times, and has a lawyer who has broken some new legal ground, at least in Dallas, in this area—or so I am told.

Finally (of course), Groden is now a card-carrying member of the “Hate DSL” and “Hate Best Evidence” club, featuring Dr. Cyril Wecht and his pal, Gary Aguilar (and I could name others), with supporting roles played by someone like DiEugenio, whose claim to fame was his uncritical belief that Garrison was the be-all and end all, who still believes that JFK and his brother didn't know about the CIA's assassination plots; and---apparently--doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that autopsy falsification (via body alteration) could be conceived of (and planned) before the fact.

From his website, DiEugenio often chimes in, using his site to launch similar snide (and sometimes nasty) commentary about me and my work (often from one of his “writers”; and often "signed" [i.e., as if written by DiEugenio, when it was not)]. DiEug--who prides himself in saying that he has me on "ignore" (an accomplishment in which a small mind can take some pride)--is reasonably good when it comes to issues like Vietnam, but doesn’t understand the medical evidence and won’t discuss it, usually referring people to Aguilar (who probably listens carefully, when he is on his meds).

My last conversation [with] Aguilar (who has a barely controlled temper, and often flies off the handle), occurred in March 2000 (yes, that long ago). It ended with Aguilar having the telephone equivalent of "road rage" and in a screaming cursing tirade, like an out-of-control child, with his multiple uses of the “F” word, directed at me personally and screaming that no, he didn't believe the body was altered; saying that I wasn't even a good Jew, and if I appeared at "his" hospital, where a JFK gathering was scheduled to take place, he would have me arrested and thrown out by security, if I dared to open my mouth. Nice guy, whose temperament has perhaps improved, over time.

An interesting question, for those who enjoy the theoretical, is whom would you rather have to dinner: DVP, Aguilar, or DiEugenio? (I'll take DVP, anytime. At least I know I'll be able to finish dinner, using my knife and fork to eat with, and not to defend myself; and maybe I'll get the chicken for free!).

Have I now explained the situation, DVP?

I never really expected to write all this out, in this detail. But perhaps it's necessary to explain what is going on here. To properly appreciate one of the major splits in the JFK research movement. And, finally, to properly depict Robert Groden–in context. And to attempt to do so in a reasonably fair and accurate manner, and without—as the saying goes—throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And there is a lot of bathwater.


3/6/2018 - 1:05 PM PST

Orange County, California


Thank you, David Lifton, for yet another very detailed and interesting response. The things you have said about Robert Groden's possible reason(s) for not wanting to include in his book (TKOAP) the things that Dr. Perry allegedly told him in 1977 do make some degree of sense to me, but it's still a bit difficult for me to believe that a major conspiracy author like Bob Groden would have been willing to just ignore a series of allegedly contradictory statements being made by one of the doctors who had his hands on President Kennedy in the emergency room in Dallas.

Because even if Mr. Groden was not a believer in your "Body Alteration" theory, I would think he still could have found a way to utilize Dr. Perry's "bombshell" 1977 statements to his advantage in order to promote the two main issues that Groden advocates --- "conspiracy" and "cover-up". Instead, Groden just decided to drop the whole matter and sweep Perry's statements (which are statements that Perry supposedly made to Groden in person) under the rug?!? That seems very unlikely, in my opinion.*

* I'm not saying your explanation for Groden's reticence is totally wrong, but knowing of Mr. Groden's passion for spreading the "conspiracy" word (as I do), Bob's total silence in his 1993 book concerning this tracheotomy bombshell seems mighty strange to me.

David L., I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on various matters concerning the JFK case this week [in late February and early March of 2018]. And these discussions have provided some excellent additional material for my own archives of "JFK Assassination Arguments" at my website. So I thank you, DSL, for that.

But I have to also say that the many things you have said in this discussion have not caused me to be swayed a single bit into believing in any kind of "conspiracy" or "cover-up" or "alteration of videotapes" relating to Dr. Perry or any other part of the investigation into John F. Kennedy's murder. (But I'm sure that doesn't come as much of a shock to you.) :-)

Yes, there's an apparent discrepancy with respect to some of the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry said to various people over the years concerning the tracheotomy procedure that Perry performed on President Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital in Dallas on 11/22/63. I cannot deny that discrepancy. But I also have a difficult time believing that if Dr. Perry was so committed to telling such blatant lies to the public regarding the details surrounding the tracheotomy (e.g., the "lies" you think he told to the Warren Commission, the ARRB, and to the CBS-TV audience in 1967), then I have to ask myself: Why on Earth would this alleged LIAR be willing to tell multiple people—including AUTHOR Robert J. Groden!—something totally different from what he had said (i.e., lied about) numerous times in public and in his Warren Commission testimony?

Didn't he know that Groden was a WRITER OF BOOKS on the JFK assassination? And didn't Perry know that his "confession" (so to speak) about leaving the wound "inviolate" would likely end up being printed somewhere, and that such a "confession" would be totally at odds with what he told the Warren Commission and CBS News years earlier?

In other words, it's my opinion (which you might regard as silly as all get out) that even with such "discrepancies" existing in the record when comparing Dr. Perry's public vs. private statements, there MUST be, in my view, an explanation that can reconcile those discrepancies without having to resort to this conclusion: Dr. Perry lied.

As my very good friend and fellow "LNer" Jean Davison said (which is one of many “Common Sense” quotes by Jean that I have archived over the last several years):

"Although the solutions proposed by [David] Lifton and [Michael] Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based on unexplained discrepancies in the record. .... Alternative explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little attention, if any." -- Jean Davison; Pages 274-275 of "Oswald's Game" (1983)

In summary....

I enjoy discussing the JFK case with David S. Lifton. It's just a shame that all of that writing talent, and all of that detailed knowledge about the JFK case, and all of that research skill, and all of that decades worth of effort on the part of Mr. Lifton has been so misdirected and misguided (IMO). For, I ask with all sincerity, how is a reasonable human being supposed to take seriously a person who says things like this to them?:

"You might want to pick up and reread those sections of 'Best Evidence' which deal with the design of the sophisticated strategic deception which, I believe, was used in conjunction with the Kennedy assassination, in order to hide the true source of the shots, and point a false evidentiary vector in the direction of the so-called “sniper’s nest”. .... That is what Chapter 14, titled “Trajectory Reversal”, is all about. It is not titled “Strategic Deception.” Rather, it is titled “Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception” and I have no doubt it will stand the test of time. Long after Mr. Bugliosi's tome is viewed as an anachronism, the last hurrah of someone trying to defend the “Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself” thesis, “Trajectory Reversal” will be properly viewed (i.e., ultimately recognized) as the genuine blueprint for a strategic deception utilized in connection with the Dallas shooting, and the best description of what actually happened. (Which it is.) It is why the media reported one thing, whereas the President’s body provided evidence of something quite different." -- David S. Lifton; March 6, 2011

"If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David S. Lifton; May 4, 2013

"There was an attempt to alter the audio on that tape [of the 1967 CBS News program]. A clumsy attempt, which resulted in a tape (at that point) where Perry's lip movements are clearly out of sync with the audio track." -- David S. Lifton; March 2, 2018

The above quotes provide just three examples (among many) of the type of highly improbable and bizarre theories that Mr. Lifton has endorsed since the mid-1960s. And in order for me to place my faith (or belief) in either of those theories—particularly the first one—I would have no choice but to toss all of my common sense out the nearest window.

Here's what I said five years ago:

"The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case." -- David Von Pein; May 4, 2013

The late Vincent Bugliosi summed things up pretty well too, when he said this:

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 1057 and 1066 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)


I thought Groden did mention the Perry interview in Killing of a President? The book From Parkland to Bethesda cites it as such....


Dr. Malcolm Oliver “Mac” Perry, Attending Surgeon (deceased 12/5/2009)

1979 interview with Robert Groden [“BE”, p. 706; Groden’s “TKOAP”, p. 77 (includes photo of Perry)]---photos of neck and head wound not as he remembered them to be: his trach was “neater”, and not the “larger, expanded” one seen in the pictures. Also, the head wound more closely matched the Dr. McClelland drawing in “Six Seconds in Dallas”; “When interviewed in 1979, he still maintained that the bullet had entered the President’s throat from the front...”

[End Book Quote.]

[Source:] Palamara, Vincent. JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium (p. 5). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.


Thanks, Micah.

For the record....

I just now took a photo of pages 76 and 77 of Robert Groden's book "The Killing Of A President" [see below], and although a "1979 interview" with Dr. Perry is mentioned on Page 77, there is nothing in that brief section of text that says anything about Perry saying he left JFK's throat wound "inviolate", nor is there anything mentioned there about the trach wound looking "neater" than the wound seen in the autopsy photos. (That "neater" info must have come from Vincent Palamara's other listed source—"BE", p. 706—because it sure didn't come from "TKOAP", p. 77.)

Also (FWIW) .... Palamara probably has the date of that interview incorrect. From what I gather from Mr. Lifton in this discussion, that interview took place in 1977, not '79. (But maybe there was a second Groden/Perry interview in '79 too. ~shrug~)

Moreover, just as I quoted previously, Groden, on Page 76 of TKOAP [top left], positively endorses the idea that Dr. Perry did, indeed, cut through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat:


And, as we can see on the above two book pages, the notion of Dr. Perry cutting through the bullet hole in JFK's neck is endorsed by Groden a total of three separate times in the text seen on pages 76 and 77 of his 1993 publication.


FWIW / BTW / FYI....

I feel compelled to add the following information to this discussion regarding Parkland Hospital's Dr. David Stewart, mainly because of the fact that when David Lifton first mentioned the name of a "Dr. Stewart" earlier in this forum discussion, my initial reaction upon seeing that name in print was, "Who in the world is Dr. Dave Stewart? I don't think I've ever heard of him before. And I can't seem to recall any of the other Parkland doctors talk about him in the past either." And that was my reaction, even though, of course, I had already seen Vincent Bugliosi's one and only reference to Dr. Stewart in Vince's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" [see image below]. But since it was a very brief—and singular—reference that Bugliosi made to Stewart in "RH", I had totally forgotten about it....


There's also an article that appeared in The Milwaukee Sentinel on January 30, 1967, which deals (in part) with "Dr. W. David Stewart". It would seem, based on that 1967 article, that Stewart's main function on 11/22/63 at Parkland was to deal with Governor Connally's injuries, not JFK's.

And the most interesting thing that I found today [March 9, 2018] concerning Dr. Stewart comes in the form of a written review that Stewart himself wrote in May of 2006 at Amazon.com for Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book. In that review, Dr. Stewart, in effect, admits that he himself was not present in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland with President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Here's what Stewart said:

"Chuck Crenshaw was a friend of mine at Parkland Hospital. We both were
there at the time of the assassination. We were both residents in general surgery. He was in the trauma room with Kennedy. My only criticism with his book is in his exaggeration of his role. The facts he related were identical to those of all the other physicians who were in attendance."
-- Dr. David Stewart; May 16, 2006

I think it's pretty clear that when Stewart said "He was in the trauma room with Kennedy", he was indicating that Dr. Crenshaw WAS in the Emergency Room with JFK, but Stewart himself was not there.


None of the above information necessarily has to mean anything at all with respect to the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry allegedly said to Dr. Stewart in the days that followed the assassination; but I think the credibility of Dr. Stewart on certain issues relating to JFK's death could certainly be called into question, particularly the things Stewart allegedly told radio host Joe Dolan on April 10, 1967, none of which do we find in Stewart's own 2006 written remarks that I highlighted above.


David Von Pein:

Dr. Stewart never said (to me) that he was in ER-1. Ever. To the contrary, he made clear that he was not. He made that point in my 1982 telephone conversation with him, and again in the June 1989 filmed interview.

With regard to JFK's wounding, he was a witness to what the other doctors told him, not to what he saw.


Now there are two other matters I will hurriedly report here, to be further elaborated upon when time permits:

ITEM #1: What Robert Groden told us during the filmed interview -- A New Fact....

Pat Valentino, reviewing the video tapes over the last few days...emailed me that the following repartee took place when Groden (and the Baltimore reporter) visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office. Upon being shown the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. (This was actually stated during the filmed interview.) Groden agreed, and that is when Perry said "OK" (or words to that effect); and it was then that he shook his head from side-to-side, and said that that was not the way he left the wound.

Why I bring this up: This is in response to your question, DVP, as to (possibly) why Groden may not have reported the incident when he wrote his book, The Killing of a President. Remember what I said: I said that (in 1993) he wouldn't want to say anything which would indicate an agreement with body alteration; but based upon the June 1989 filmed interview that Pat V has been reviewing, Groden may have felt constrained by an (informal, and certainly legally unenforceable) agreement with the late Dr. Perry.

ITEM #2: Audio analysis....

A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts). He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have reviewed it, I will pass it along.


3/9/2018 - 9:40 PM PST

Orange County, California


Thanks for the additional information, David L.

As I said, the apparent inconsistent statements from Dr. Stewart that I talked about above don't necessarily mean anything at all when it comes to the things Dr. Perry supposedly said to Stewart about the throat wound. But I think those contradictory accounts are kind of interesting nevertheless.

Since you say you have Dr. Stewart on film saying he was never in Trauma Room 1 with JFK, then it's got to make you scratch your head a little bit (right?) when you see alleged statements being attributed to the same man (David Stewart) which say exactly the opposite (e.g., the Dolan radio interview of 4/10/67 and the quotes that evidently appear in one of Harold Weisberg's books).


I find this comment you made quite interesting (and humorous):

"Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. .... Groden agreed." -- DSL

And even with such a rigid agreement in place, what does Groden decide to do in 1989 in front of two people (David Lifton and Pat Valentino)? Groden decides that 12 years of living up to that verbal agreement with Dr. Perry was more than enough---so he decides to violate the agreement and spill his guts about what Malcolm Perry told him in 1977. (Nice guy, that Bob Groden, huh?) ~smirk~

Regarding this comment:

"A friend who has audio expertise...notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought NOT to be the sound of any words."

And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-)

If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever.

Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?

David Von Pein
February 28—March 10, 2018