From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part II, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the murder of President Kennedy
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:44:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


       I made the following transcript from a tape recording 
       of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station 
            WBAI-FM (99.5)
            505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
            New York, NY 10018        (212) 279-0707

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:
Well, first just let me say that the one thing I think that
everyone including Mr. Weisberg, including Gerald Ford, including
David Bigeley(?), including everybody who is connected with this
thing at this point .... I think the one thing that we can all
agree on is that there is substantial controversy over the death
of President Kennedy and over the subsequent investigation and
the medical evidence. Now, in this particular case, that
confusion, that controversy, that obfuscation, if you will, is
the basis of what can legitimately be called "the cover-up".
There should not have been a cover-up. There should not have been
this confusion. This was a case .... this was the President of
the United States, for God's sake. There was an autopsy at
Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was treatment at a reputable
hospital: Parkland, in Dallas. And there should not be this
confusion. There should be some very clear-cut answers based on
scientific, medical, forensic evidence to say: "Here's what
happened. He was shot three times from the rear." Or: "He was
shot once from the front and once from the rear." It should be
very clear, but it's NOT. It is TOTALLY muddled. It is TOTALLY in
confusion. And THAT is the nature of this cover-up. Not that
there has never been any information, but that there has been so
much information, and so much CONTRADICTORY information that it
has thrown the whole thing into confusion and controvery, so that
we can't seem to get to the bottom of this. I think that is very
self-evident. 

Now, who has the power to do that? And who CAN do that? And who
could have saved us from all of this?  The Federal Government!
The Government who supposedly had him autopsied. The Government
who supposedly is in charge of the investigation. It should have
been clear-cut, but it's not. And, to me, that shows, in an
overview, that the Government has been responsible for all this
confusion, rather than clearing it up and actually presenting us
with factual information as to what happened. So this is what is
causing all of the problems, because the Government is STILL
saying: "Well, there's nothing there. It's all cut and dried."
And yet, it's not. 

You can look at the evidence for yourself. For instance, in the
medical evidence, I could go down the whole list of doctors in
Dallas who said that he had a large gaping hole in the right rear
portion of his head. Even Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent
who jumped up on the back of the car in a vain effort to save his
life; in his Warren Commission testimony he says, quite bluntly,
quite to the point: "The right rear portion of his head was
missing." End-quote. Okay? How much clearer do you want to be?
And every doctor in Dallas backed him up. Doctor Jones says that
there was a large defect in the back side of his head. Dr. Perry
said: "I noted a large evulsive wound in the right
parieto-occipital area." I could go on and on and on. They all
said the same thing: that there was a gaping hole in the right
rear portion of his head. But today, we have an autopsy
photograph that has come out of the Government that purports to
show the back of President Kennedy's head, and there's no large
gaping hole there. All there is is a small hole that the House
Committee told us was an entrance wound. And yet, the autopsy
doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House Committee said: 
"Well, I don't know what that was, but that wasn't any wound of
entrance. And I know that for sure."  Okay? So what's going on
here? I mean, the confusion points the finger at what REALLY is
going on, and at who is generating all this. And it's the Federal
Government!

GARY NULL:
Alright, so let's take a look here. You're suggesting that the
Government, or various members of different areas of the
Government have participated in a systematic cover-up.

JIM MARRS:
Absolutely! For instance, the Warren Commission tells us -- and
the people who defend the Warren Commission to this very day tell
us -- that one of the shots (it started off that it was the first
shot. Now they're backing up by saying: Well, maybe it was the
second one or the third one) .... but one of the shots, they say,
went through Kennedy's neck and did not hit anything. It went on
to strike Governor Connally, causing all of his wounds --
which has become known as "the single bullet theory"; this idea
that one bullet went through both men. This is the foundation of
the "single assassin theory".  Okay? If you don't have one bullet
going through two men, then you've got more bullets, which means
more shooters, which means a conspiracy involving more than one
gunman. So to keep from having to admit that, they came up with
the "single bullet theory" which says that one bullet went
through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally. 

Now, the problem is that the bullet did not go through his neck.
The Warren Commission plainly states that it hit him in the
middle of the back -- the third thoracic vertebrae, between the
shoulder blades. Doctor Humes places it there in the
Siebert-O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy. His jacket and his
shirt, in the National Archives, show a bullet hole in the middle
of the back. Well, if there's a bullet hole in the middle of the
back, and you try to track that to the throat wound -- which is
what they do -- now you've got an upward trajectory, which
destroys the idea that this bullet somehow cursed downward and
struck Governor Connally. Plus, you've got Governor Connally's
wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of
bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet that
the Government still claims caused the wound. So it's very
obvious that they're simply lying about what went on.

We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in
which their Chief Counsel admits that since we have a picture of
where the bullet entered the back, that it's below the place
where it came out the front. So how could it go and turn around,
etc.? They knew it, and so they chose to lie to us and simply 
claim that the bullet went through his neck. And the supporters
of the Warren Commission are still telling us the same thing,
although this is totally opposite to what the medical evidence
shows us.
                                                               
So it's a huge thing. You have to look at the totality of this
case. Any one particular issue can be picked apart or explained
away or rationalized as coincidence or happenstance, but if you
look at the total picture, you can begin to get an understanding
of what really went on.

GARY NULL:
Alright, Jim Marrs, I want you to hold on, because we're going to
present some new information. By the way, Jim Marrs is an award-
winning reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he was a
reporter at the time of the assassination for the Denton Record-
Chronicle. He teaches at the University of Texas at Arlington.
                      (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,
      please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other
      networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places, 
      both on and off campus.  As evidence accrues concerning the
      mass media's thirty year cover-up of the coup d'etat 
      against the People of the United States, the necessity of
      citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

      John DiNardo