From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Calling From Bellevue
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 SEP 92 12:39:40 PDT


re: 3233  (Tom Warner)

>>	Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's 
>>	reasoning.

>Are channeling Warren now?
>Did Warren make this decision?

	As I have previously stated, Lattimer reproduces a
	portion of a letter from Earl Warren stating:

	a. It was my decision.
	b. Here was why I made that decision.

>>	Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
>>	the removal of the X-rays and photos.

>I was asking for facts. Claiming you know the truth without supplying any
>evidence does not put you in a position to make assumptions about what I
>know or don't know. It's your thread; it's your burden of proof.
>I want to know what you think *you* know.

	I made the mistaken assumption that you had read the
	autopsy report.  The removal of this material, and
	by whom, is mentioned in the autopsy report.

>>	Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
>>	book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
>>	book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career" 
>>	debunking "other authors' theories."  

>Bah. He was allowed access to the medical evidence in the early days
>specifically because he was obviously a loyalist. He  most definitely
>made a career attempting to debunk others' theories.
>I've seen the book, I haven't read it all the way through. You
>haven't yet presented anything that makes me want to.

	Please show me the evidence you have indicating that
	Lattimer was allowed access because he was "obviously
	a loyalist."  Please tell me what specific authors
	Lattimer mentions in his book (that you haven't
	read all the way through) that he then sets up
	as being targets for debunking.

>>	Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
>>	that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What 
>>	Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
>>	planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
>>	more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
>>	idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
>>	of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
>>	photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
>>	adding the sum two plus two.

>I should hope Lattimer got the idea from something Humes said. Do
>you have a citation for such a quote?

	I don't have Hume's WC testimony or HSCA testimony
	in front of me but I wouldn't be surprised to find
	some mention of this matter somewhere in this testimony.
	It is hardly surprising that pathologists would want
	to rely upon photo and X-rays of the deceased when
	making their final report.

	If it is confirmation from Humes's mouth you want,
	look at the "JAMA" article of 5/27/92.

>>	I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
>>	to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
>>	in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
>>	At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
>>	crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
>>	title to this material. That the Kennedy family assumed
>>	they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
>>	use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
>>	the National Archives the material was in the physical
>>	possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
>>	Burkley.

>It's my understanding that the materials stayed with the Secret Service
>until 1965, when they were turned over to the Kennedy family at the National
>Archives (the President's estate has space there). They stayed in that office
>at the Archives until they were turned over by the Kennedys with conditions
>attached to the Archives proper. In other words, they didn't have to leave the
>building, ever, and there is no evidence Bobby Kennedy or any other member of
>the Kennedy family or any employee of the family ever disturbed the foot locker
>they were stored in until that time. It was at that time (sorry, date's not
>handy) that all of the slides and the brain were found missing. This comes
>from Livingstone HT2.

	The HSCA looked into this within the context of the disposition
	of JFK's brain.  Their research indicated that Roy Kellerman
	initially gathered the materials.  They were placed in the
	Protective Research Division of the Department of Justice.
	Later, they were transfered to the White House under the
	care of Dr. George Burkley.  In April, 1965, they were
	transfered to the National Archives, under the care of
	JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.  Robert Bouck, head
	of the PRD and George Burkely collaborated in the 
	preparation of an inventory of the material.  With 
	certain restrictions the Kennedy family transferred
	control of the material to the National Archives
	in October, 1966.

	In 1967 the Clark Panel, examining all the material,
	found no discrepancies between the original inventory
	and what they were given to examine, with the exception
	of a stainless steel container presumed to contain
	the brain.  When the material was transferred to
	the National Archives Drs. Humes and Boswell were
	called upon to authenticate the material, which
	they did.

	This is, to the best of my knowledge, the basic 
	history of the material.

>Where'd you get the Burkley story?

	See above.

>>	Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
>>	to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
>>	"pathological"?

>You mean to not be diagnosed as pathological? For someone who
>was spent as much time with evidence as Lattimer, some. My point
>is not how little he differs from the WC. My point is that he knew
>his tests were shaky at best and outright dishonest at worst.
>He obviously had a deep commitment to convincing Americans to
>have faith in their government despite anything that might come
>in his way.

	Your comments about what Dr. Lattimer "knew" and
	what his "deep commitment" was seem to me to
	be based upon sheer conjecture.  If you have
	some actual evidence (like, your channeling
	sessions, for instance) kindly present it.

>>	These days, the herd runs with the
>>	pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories. Are you loyal
>>	to the herd?

>One, not in my field they don't, two, no and never have been, three
>that's not the issue. The issue is, was Lattimer a dogma-first,
>facts-second phony hiding behind an illusory mantle of pseudo-science?
>Everything I've seen about him tells me he was.

	Your field is at odds with public opinion, which 
	overwhelmingly supports conspiracy views.  Your
	sub-herd doesn't run with the Mother Herd.

	As for your characterizations of Lattimer and his
	research you have yet to present anything even
	remotely resembling evidence to support such 
	statements.  And you accuse Lattimer of excessive
	a priorism?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)