Facebook tells all... Doubles played within the Scorpion game

Judyth Baker wrote the following on her Facebook Page and it is worth reading because she makes it clear the theory, by John Armstrong, of two IDENTICAL Oswald's by blood has some serious problems with it. We know Oswald was being ordered by his CIA superiors to cast himself as a Castro sympathizing communist patsy, and was also impersonated on various occassions by SIMILAR impersonators; such as in the sniper's nest and at the Texas Theater, but that may very well have been the extent of it. In Judyth's words:

There are serious issues with Armstrong. First, he decided not to interview me AT ALL because I was NLOT pregnant in 1963 when I posed as Marina in New Orleans. He said I could not have posed as her, even though most of the posing I did was BEFORE MARINA ARRIVED. Fact: he did not want to interview me because it would have destroyed his huge book. He provides valuable new research as to the rifle and revolver and why Lee could not have purchased them, for which he deserves credit. However, he makes serious errors. i will give a few examples. (1) he contends that Lee came from a family that spoke Russian and he learned it from birth. He repeats this many times in his book. FACT: Lee practiced his Russian all the time and had a box of flash cards in Russian that i saw him use a number of times while i was with him, and I also was with him in the Tulane music listening room when he checked out a Russian language lesson record, a big black vinyl one. FACT: an anonymous woman called from New York to Mrs. Tippit and told her that Lee's father and uncle were communists who had emigrated from Hungary. From this anonymous phone call Armstrong rests his entire theory that Lee spoke Russian from childhood. FACT: Lee's half brother, John Pic, had married a Hungarian girl and it was John Pic's father-in-law and his brother who spoke Hungarian (not Russian--many Hungarians knew Russian, but it was their second language and they spoke Hungarian as the number one language--my grandparents were Hungarian). So he mixed up this tipster's info and said lee knew Russian from childhood, while "Lee' knew none. He went on to say that Ernst Titovets, Lee's best friend in the USSR, said "Harvey" was fluent in Russian, but Titovets is going to speak at the Arlington Convention on the 23rd, and he has told us that Lee (called "Harvey" by Armstrong) worked hard to learn Russian and he never said he was fluent from the story, so Armstrong misquoted Titovets. FACT: Robert Oswald HAD to know both "Harvey" and "Lee" since he has the photos of "both" men on his wall, as can be seen in Thanksgiving movie clips. FACT: I could not find any interviews of Robert Oswald, Lee's brother, in Armstrong's book conducted by ARMSTRONG, who should have asked him if he knew 'both' Lee and "Harvey." So he did not interview me nor Robert Oswald for his book. FACT: Armstrong says "Harvey": in New York was nine inches shorter than "Lee" who was big and strong. QUESTION: Why would CIA ever believe these two very different height boys would grow up to be able to take each other's places? FACT: By saying there is basically only "Lee" impersonating "Harvey" the actual impersonators are let off the hook and people stop trying to find traces of them, thinking they are all "Lee." FACT: Lee told me that he was often called HARVEY in school to tease him and make him fight. Teachers sometimes called him "Harvey" because they heard the other boys call him that and thought it was his preferred name, when he HATED the name "Harvey" and would fight a guy who called him that. For this reason, "Harvey" was used to taunt him to fight, and teachers picked it up. That does not mean that a "Harvey" and NOT a "Lee" attended school there, juyst because records show a Lee attending, and yet teachers remembered a "Harvey" whose records sometimes, also, vanish (because he is really LEE). FACT: if "Harvey" is not "Lee" why is the man arrested by police, who Armstrong calls "Harvey" wearing an ID bracelet that clearly says LEE? FACT: Police get many tips from tipsters and most do not pan out. Armstrong uses every tip he can find that supports "Lee" being in the US, for example, when "Harvey" is in the USSR. But Lee was a spy--the real Lee who was in Russia. At the height of the Cold War, no less. To get a job, he said he had just left the marines, but also, some records were generated in the US to make it harder to trace him as having lived in the USSR. FACT: Armstrong did not understand that many records in the marines that he was looking at were deliberately obscured or altered to hide Lee's true identity. That doesn't mean there was a "Henry" or a "Harvey" as well as a "Lee." There is much, much more. The worst problem is that there was no need to have to switch kids and raise them for years with dual families and all of that. There had to be two mother Marguerites, for example: he does not understand the devastation that thyroid deficiency causes (I suffer from it myself, and it ruined my looks).Marguerite's looks were ruined by thyroid deficiency--she gained weight, stopped wearing heels, lost hair, and aged quickly. Armstrong uses photos of Marguerite when she was younger versus when she was older as if they are two separate women, when they in fact wear identical real pearl earrings throughout, both keep losing jobs and moving to the same cities throughout, both somehow are "Marguerite"to the entire Murret family (including "Harvey''s" Marguerite whose sister is Lillian--Lillian in fact, along with her husband and their many children all have to know there were two Oswalds--both "Harvey" and "Lee" since they KNOW the addresses of "Lee's" Marguerite as well as of "Harvey's" Marguerite. In one photo, Lillian is identified as Marguerite, as well. Ed Voebel, Lee's friend at Bearegard Jr. High, also has to know 'both' Oswalds since he visits Exchange Place and is "Harvey's" friend but always calls him "Lee" in the historic record. A teacher there said little Harvey got hurt by a piano falling on him and had to be transported home to Exchange Place at the same time that Lillian Murret says LEE is living there with his mother. The teacher is supposed to have remembered "Harvey" very well because he was in ONE home room ONE semester, decades ago, and he 'watched' her teach a girl's P E class after school sometimes. She remembers him as "Harvey" even though "Lee" is registered at the school. There is much, much more I can say, and eventually will write, about this Harvey and Lee theory, especially regarding the exhumation where everyone was surprised to find "Harvey" (that is, LEE) in the grave. they decided his head had been replaced and other nonsense, since Harvey had a mastoidectomy that did not show up on the autopsy. However, lee had plastic surgery when he was hospitalized in MINSK USSR for an adenoid operation. he was supposed to stay only a few days but remained there two weeks (got some plastic surgery done, he told me so). This tucked up the scar under his ear, so it did not show up on the autopsy report, yet showed up on the exhumed skull-hence the legend the head had been replaced, helped along by the head being dislocated from the skeleton because the tiny cervical vertebrae cannot hold the heavy skull if it rolls, as it certainly did when the coffin was being lifted out of the broken vault. I can say much about why the skull cut done in autopsy was not visible, having to do with semi-mummification of adipose tissues of the scalp...ugh. I assure you that the only reason Lee looked so strange in the coffin before his burial was because his tissues had bled out, collapsing the muscles that made his face rounder and his entire body more muscular than it looks in the autopsy photos.... It was him. There's more to say, but hope this suffices for now.
While John Armstrong has contributed new files to the case which are valuable, he errs as to his theory. One matter which I didn’t mention, above, is the idea that Lee and "Harvey" went to two different schools. In our long exchange of talk about New York, Lee commented to me (and I first told researchers about this in 2000) that he had not attended enough days in school in New York to be allowed to pass and advance to the next grade, when they returned to New Orleans. "Nobody in the family had ever been held back," he told me, "and Ma was not about to put up with this, if New York called and told my school I shouldn't be allowed to go on to the next grade." I remember quite clearly the solution: Marguerite got a Mafia associate to get into the school records and "make sure" Lee had enough attendance days. To back that up, there was an attendance record created at another school at the same time in Texas (this had to be in Fort Worth). The idea was to make sure Lee looked like he was attending school in Texas, where his brothers had previously gone to school, when he was actually attending in New Orleans. Armstrong has used this as evidence of two Oswald’s, even though in other places in his book he has "Lee" and "Harvey" attending the same school, one fulltime, the other part-time, in the Dolly Shoe scenario, of which I've written an essay explaining the problems he created by saying the Jr. high got out at 4:30 (it got out at 3:30), that the shoe store closed at 5:45 (stores closed at 6:00) all to make it 'impossible' for "Harvey" to have worked there part-time, so has him working fulltime while "Lee" attends school fulltime, poor Harvey doesn't... atop this, Lee (the real Lee) clearly wrote that he worked TEN WEEKS for a shoe store...which Armstrong tried to make seem just two weeks. How did he do that? By assuming that Lee (Harvey) did not start working there until he got his official work permit. Sorry, things were a lot looser back then, and only when the manager was sure he would keep Lee on did he apply for a work permit for him. Lee's W-2 form was signed weeks earlier, the same date as his mother, Marguerite, who also applied and was hired to work there. Only by assuming Lee didn't work a lick until weeks later --and cutting off times open for the store and times that school got out, in an effort to 'prove' Lee could not have worked as many hours as it would take to show part-time work for the pay given, does Armstrong try to convince readers that "Harvey" had to work fulltime for a couple of weeks. It wasn't so. For example, Armstrong does not count the day after Easter, when school was out, as a day that Lee could work there fulltime. When this is added, the figures come out correctly for a generally part-time job where Lee would pick up shoes and tidy up for an hours or so every day, for some ten weeks, including a fulltime day on the Monday following Easter, which was a special sale day. Then the hours for part-time work add up.

Richard Carr testimony President JFK, Court document

Richard Carr, he came to my attention  when  saw the evidence.  It reminded me it was allegedly the Ritual Key “Bull notation”.  Richard car was on the seventhfloor of the new courthouse watches as two men run from behind the Texas School Book Depository.  The men enter a waiting station wagon then it was noted they speed off north on Houston  Street.

Richard Carr describes the men he saw as “heavy set, wearing a hot, tan sport coat and horn rim glasses”.  It was the horn, the tan jacket as the relationship of the Scorpion ritual  where the Magician would wear a tan jumper, and the brown shoes that were noted.

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT 
PARISH OF ORLEANS 
STATE OF LOUISIANA 
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW 
198-059 
1426 (30) 
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 19, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, Mr. Carr is unable to walk because of a recent accident, and we understand the Defense has no objection, if the Court will permit, to have Mr. Carr wheeled right in front of the State Counsel table.
THE COURT: That's all right. He can testify from there.
RICHARD RANDOLPH CARR, having been first duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Mr. Carr, we can hear you if you speak into the microphone, sir, and it is important that the Jury be able to hear you and Defense Counsel over here (indicating) and the Court Reporter. What is your full name?
A: Richard Randolph Carr.
Q: And in what City do you live?
A: Dallas, Texas.
Q: And what city were you living in during the month of November, 1963?
A: Dallas, Texas, 322 North Canden, Oak Cliff.
Q: Can you recall the day of November 22, 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you recall what part of the City you were in around the middle of the day on November 22?
A: Yes, I was on the Seventh Floor of the New Courthouse Building that was under con- struction at that time, located on Houston and Commerce, facing Dealey Plaza.
Q: Approximately what time were you on the Seventh Floor of that building facing Dealey Plaza?
A: Sir, I can't recall the exact time, but it was at the time that the parade was coming down towards Dealey Plaza. I did not have a watch at the time.
Q: Were you in a position where you could see the parade?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you recall seeing anything unusual happening?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Would you tell us what happened.
A: At the time the parade came down towards -- going to the School Book Depository, Dealey Plaza would have been to my left where I was standing, and at the Fifth Floor of the School Book Depository I noticed a man at the third window, this man was dressed -- he had on a light hat, and I saw this man later going down Houston Street, to the corner of Commerce, and then turned toward town on Commerce, and at that time before this happened I heard a single shot which sounded like a small arms, maybe a pistol, and I immediately, immediately there was a slight pause and immediately after that I heard three rifle shots in succession, they seemed to be fired from an automatic rifle and they came --
MR. DYMOND: We object to the witness giving his conclusions on this.
THE COURT: Mr. Carr, do not give your conclusions on this point.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Go ahead and tell us what you heard.
A: I heard three rifle shots fired from a high-powered rifle --
MR. DYMOND: We object to that unless the man is qualified as an expert. I ask the Jury be instructed to disregard that.
THE COURT: It is a question whether or not an ordinary human being, whether he would know a rifle shot or not. I do not know --
MR. DYMOND: We don't know this man had rifles since he was a child, we don't know that he ever had been a hunter, and this man --
MR. GARRISON: We can clarify that very easily.
Q: Mr. Carr, have you ever heard rifle fire before?
A: I have.
Q: Where?
A: I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II. I qualified as an expert with a bolt-action rifle which is called a thirty aught six, in the Army it is a 30-caliber rifle, since that time I was -- I used a 225 Winchester, I hunted with a 70 millimeter Remington, I have also loaded my own ammunition, which I do until this day.
Q: Were you ever wounded in action?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: That is irrelevant. Why don't you tender Mr. Carr over to the Defense as an expert, at least in the field that he knows a rifle shot when he hears it?
MR. GARRISON: One other question.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Have you ever heard rifle fire in combat?
A: Yes, I have heard rifle fire in combat.
Q: On how many occasions?
A: I was in -- I landed in Casablanca, I went through North Africa, I was in two major offensives in Africa, and from there I went to Anzio beachhead and my battalion was annihilated, 13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion.
Q: How many of these places did you hear rifle fire?
A: In all of them I heard rifle fire, sir.
MR. GARRISON: We tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Carr, when you were qualified in the Army as an expert with a rifle, did that, was that pertaining to marksmanship or the identification of the type of rifle being fired from the noise made?
A: Sir, clarify that.
Q: Your qualification as an expert rifleman in the Army, was that in marksmanship and the breaking down of rifles or the identification of rifle sounds?
A: I became an expert on the range in the act of firing a rifle.
Q: In other words, that would be marksmanship, would it not, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, these various actions in which your battalion took place, do you know what type of rifles were being fired at you?
A: No, sir, I do not.
Q: Do you know whether there was more than one type of rifle being fired at me.
A: Yes, I do know there was more than one type of rifle being fired at me.
Q: But you can't name the different types. Is that correct?
A: Well, I did not see them, and without seeing, I could not name them.
MR. DYMOND: That's all.
THE COURT: Is the matter submitted?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, the State would add that Mr. Carr is about as expert in the sounds of gunfire as you could be and still be walking around.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this gentleman may have been fired at many times, but he does not know what type of rifles were being fired, he was never called upon to distinguish as between sounds of various different rifles, and if you hold this man out as an expert, every many including myself who was in combat during World War II would be an expert. I certainly don't hold myself out as one.
THE COURT: I rule that Mr. Carr is qualified as an expert and can give his opinion on whether a shot or a noise he heard is from a rifle or not, but not what type rifle.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill of exception, making all the testimony up until this point, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record parts of the bill.
MR. GARRISON: The Judge has ruled that you can tell us whether or not the noise you heard was from a rifle but not what type rifle.
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I would not say what type of a rifle, I would not say it was a thirty aught six --
MR. DYMOND:
Objection, there was no question asked.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Let's go back to where we were and can you tell us what you heard?
A: Yes, a pipefitter and myself were standing on the Seventh Floor of the -- on the outside of the structure of this courthouse, we were looking, as I told before in my statement the FBI and everyone else --
MR. DYMOND: I object to his previous statements to the FBI, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: You can go on and tell us what you observed, tell us what you observed and what you heard.
A: All right. As I stated before, I noticed this fellow in the window, and this gentleman, the pipefitter and myself, he made the statement to --
MR. DYMOND: I object to what the man made a statement concerning.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: You can say what you said.
A: I thought he was a Secret Agent man or an FBI man.
Q: What did the man in the window look like?
A: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy-rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on his glasses.
Q: Go ahead.
A: He had on a tie, he had on a light shirt, a tan sport coat.
Q: Now, you say you heard gunfire. Will you tell us again what you heard.
A: Yes, sir. The first I heard, I made the statement before the objection, I say it was small arms, a pistol --
MR. DYMOND: He has not been qualified --
THE COURT: Just say what kind of noise you heard.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: What kind of noise did you hear?
A: I heard a shot. There was a pause and immediately after that there were three shots in succession.
Q: Were you able to tell from where the first shot was coming?
A: No, sir, not the first one I could not tell the direction it come from.
Q: Were you able to tell from where the three shots came from which followed?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Where did they come from?
A: They came from the -- from where I was standing at the new courthouse, they came from in this direction here, behind this picket fence, and one knocked a bunch of grass up along in this area here (indicating), this area here is flat, looking at it from here, but the actual way it is, it is on a slope up this way and you could tell from the way it knocked it up that the bullet came from this direction (indicating).
Q: Now, when you just touched the ruler to this mockup, what was the area which you were describing as the source of the three shots, can you describe it a little more precisely?
A: Yes, there was a picket fence along in this area here, it does not show it in here, and it seems the shots came from this direction, and underneath that slope there were people.
Q: And what happened?
A: The shots came from this direction, from behind this picket fence that I do not see here, and there is a slope here, there is a grassy slope down here and there were a lot of people, spectators down here, below on this grassy slope, but when those shots were fired the motorcycle policemen, the Secret Service and what-have-you, all came in this direction, the way the shots came from, some of the people that were sitting there or standing fell to the ground as if the shots were coming off of those --
MR. DYMOND: I object to his conclusion, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: It is not a conclusion, Your Honor, I saw it.
MR. DYMOND: I ask the witness be instructed to wait for the Court's ruling.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill of exception on the conclusions of the witness. I will make the Defense objection, all the questions propounded to this witness, the entire record and the Court's ruling, parts of the bill.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Now, of those shots, which of the three shots did you hear coming from that area you have just pointed out by the picket fence on the knoll?
A: The three shots, the last three shots came from this area.
Q: Did the three shots seem break apart in time or very close in time?
A: No, sir, they were fired from a semi-automatic or either --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this.
THE COURT: Just tell us the sequence, Mr. Carr.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: You can tell us whether they sounded close or separate.
A: Yes, they were very close together.
Q: If you were to say with your voice "BOOM" three times, could you give us the approximate separation as you recall it?
A: Well, BOOM-BOOM-BOOM, just in that order.
Q: All right. Now, I am not going into the whole thing there, but just so that we can see where the spot was on the photomap, now, "S-34," Mr. Carr, that you are looking at now, an aerial photograph of the scene --
A: Yes.
Q: -- could you orient yourself, can you identify everything by looking at the area photograph?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you show us the are from which you heard the three shots coming on the area photograph?
A: The three shots came from in this direction right here (indicating).
Q: Can you recognize the cement arcade in the area photograph?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, are you able to recall from which ends of the cement arcade the three shots came from, was it from the end towards the Depository or the end towards the overpass?
A: At the end towards the overpass, right here.
MR. GARRISON: Let the record show that Mr. Carr just indicated, would you point your ruler up there -- let the record show Mr. Carr is indicating an area on the grassy knoll in the vicinity of the picket fence.
THE COURT: Let it be noted on the record.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Now, after the shots, did you notice any movement of any kind --
A: Yes, I did.
Q: -- as unusual, that was unusual?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Would you tell us what you observed.
A: Should I point it out, sir?
Q: Yes.
A: At this point right here, at this School Book Depository there was a Rambler Station Wagon there with a rack on the back, built on the top of this.
Q: Which way was the station wagon facing?
A: It was parked on the wrong side of the street, next to the School Book Depository heading north.
Q: North being the top of the photomap, north is the top as you have indicated?
A: North is the top, and it was headed in this direction towards the railroad tracks, and immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository, there was a Latin, I can't say whether he was Spanish, Cuban, but he was real dark-complected, stepped out and opened the door, there was two men entered that station wagon, and the Latin drove it north on Houston. The car was in motion before the rear door was closed, and this one man got in the front, and then he slid in from the -- from the driver's side over, and the Latin got back and they proceeded north and it was moving before the rear door was closed, and the other man that I described to you being in this window which would have been one, two, the third window over here came across the street, he came down, coming towards the construction site on Houston Street, to Commerce, in a very big hurry, he came to Commerce Street and he turned toward town on Commerce Street and every once in a while he would look over his shoulder as if he was being followed.
Q: Now, Mr. Carr, did you have occasion to give this information to any law enforcement agencies?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did anyone tell you not to say anything about this?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: I object to what anyone told him, Your Honor, on the grounds it's hearsay.
THE COURT: A moment ago you asked Mrs. Parker if anybody threatened her. Is it your question, Mr. Garrison, whether or not Mr. Carr was threatened by someone? Is your question to the witness a question of whether or not anyone threatened Mr. Carr?
MR. GARRISON: I will rephrase it.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Did anyone threaten you?
MR. DYMOND: At this time we object to the Court's suggesting questions to Counsel for the State. The suggested question is completely different from the question previously propounded by the State. This is not the function of a Trial Judge in any trail.
MR. GARRISON: May it please the Court, I will phrase my own questions on this.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Mr. Carr, did you talk to any FBI agents about this incident?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did they tell you to forget about it?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as hearsay.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Were you threatened in any way --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection. You cannot tell us the words used by someone who spoke to you because of hearsay; however, you can state that you had conversations with them and what did you do as a result of the conversation, I will permit that.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what did you do?
A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.
Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir.
MR. GARRISON: I tender the witness.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: When did you first notice that President Kennedy had been shot?
A: About an hour and 15 minutes after it happened, sir.
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not realize that anything had gone wrong in the Presidential motorcade?
A: I realized something had gone wrong but I did not know what.
Q: Did you realize that anyone had been shot?
A: No, sir, I did not.
Q: Until an hour and 15 minutes after it happened, is that your testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: I see. Now, wasn't it your testimony that you heard what you thought were gunshot --
A: Yes.
Q: -- noises?
A: Yes, I did not think it was gunshots, I knew it was gunshots.
Q: I see. Didn't you also testify that you saw people running up to the grassy knoll area?
A: I did.
Q: Did you draw any conclusions from that?
A: Your Honor, you asked me not to have any conclusions a while ago, did you not?
THE COURT: You can answer this question.
THE WITNESS: I have conclusions, yes, I did.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you conclude that anybody had been shot?
A: I concluded someone had been shot or shot at, yes.
Q: Did you detect any commotion or unusual activities in the vicinity of the Presidential vehicle?
A: I detected the vehicles gathering speed and moving on, yes, I did.
Q: Did you attach any importance to that or think it was unusual?
A: I thought it was very unusual, yes.
Q: Now, when did you see the Presidential vehicle gathering speed in relation to the gunshots?
A: It was shortly after.
Q: Would I be fair in saying it was immediately after the gunshots?
A: I would say there was a pause and it looked like, it looked like somebody trying to get home from where I was at.
Q: By clapping your hands, first indicating the last gunshot, and then the time that you saw the unusual activity around the Presidential vehicle, clapping them again, so as to show us the space of time, would you please do that, sir.
A: That has been five years ago, and it seemed like minutes, which it was only seconds.
Q: In other words, it's your testimony now that it was only seconds between the last shot and your seeing commotion and unusual activity around the Presidential vehicle. Is that correct?
A: Well, now, I ain't said nothing about seeing commotion around the Presidential vehicle, what type of commotion I noticed mostly was people running to the area that I described, this area right here, sir.
Q: That happened right after the shots were fired?
A: Yes, that happened immediately.
Q: Would you say that happened before or after you saw the Presidential vehicle accelerate and start to go faster?
A: That happened before.
Q: All right. After seeing the people run up the grassy knoll, which happened right after you heard the shots, right after that you saw --
MR. ALCOCK: That is not what he said, that is not his testimony.
(Whereupon, the testimony pertinent to this point was ready by the Reporter.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Right after that you saw the Presidential vehicle accelerate. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. Now, when you saw the Presidential vehicle accelerate, did that attract your attention?
A: No, sir, not so much as I turned and looked back, as I told you before, I saw these people come out from behind the School Book Depository and I am going to try to make this clear to you so where you can understand it, from where I was at I could not tell whether they came out this side entrance here, there is a side entrance to the School Book Depository, or whether they came from behind it, but they came either from the side entrance or they came from behind it, and got into this station wagon.
Q: Now, how about the rest of the motorcade, did it accelerate along with the Presidential --
A: The crowd crowded in so fast until I could not tell anything about the rest of the motorcade or nothing else, there was a lot of commotion there from then on.
Q: Was there a great deal of traffic on Stemmons Freeway at that time?
A: Stemmons Freeway is on up here.
Q: I am talking about Elm Street going --
A: You said Stemmons Freeway, Elm Street is here, sir. No, sir, there was not much traffic on Elm Street.
Q: Not much traffic?
A: Elm Street had been blocked off for the motorcade.
Q: About how many automobiles were in the motorcade?
A: I don't know.
Q: Would you say plenty or just one or two?
A: Well, at the time this happened, I saw three.
Q: You only saw three vehicles, three automobiles in the Presidential motorcade. Is that correct?
A: At the time it happened I had only seen three, part of them were on back, had not got to that point yet.
Q: Did you ever see any more than these three?
A: Sir, I saw no more because I explained to you that the commotion was so great that everybody stopped there, there were a lot of people on the streets, on both sides, there were people up here, spectators, there were people lined everywhere along that route, all over there.
Q: Mr. Carr, weren't you interested in looking at this commotion and trying to see what was causing it?
A: Was I interested in knowing what was causing it?
Q: That is correct.
A: I would like to have known, but I could not have got through the crowd to find out it I had to.
Q: You had a pretty good spot from which to look, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you looking to try to see what caused it?
A: I say were you looking to try to see what went on, what caused it?
A: To see what caused the commotion?
Q: That's right.
A: No, sir, not to see what caused it, I was looking to see what was going on.
Q: You were looking where, to see what was going on?
A: I was looking to see why all of the commotion down here and why these people were running.
Q: And at the same time you were looking up towards the Texas Book Depository seeing three men come out from behind it. Is that right?
A: Do you see these dots on this --
Q: Would you answer my question and then explain, please, sir. I say would you answer the question and then explain.
A: Yes, I will answer your question, repeat it, please.
THE COURT: Mr. Carr, when a question is put to you, you can answer it yes or no, but you have a right to explain your answer so you cannot be cut off, so if you wish to explain the answer, you are permitted by law to do so.
(Whereupon, the question was read back by the Reporter.)
A: Yes, that's right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: And also at the same time you were watching the man whom you say you had seen on the Fifth Floor of the Book Depository walk on Houston Street towards Main. Is that right?
A: Yes, and I have -- may I explain that?
Q: Yes.
THE COURT: You may explain.
A: The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: And you were watching that procedure at the same time that you were watching what was going on in the grassy knoll area?
A: No, sir.
Q: And what was going on around the Presidential vehicle and in the motorcade, right?
A: No, sir, I was watching that man at that time, and I watched him until I could see him no longer, but that man acted as if he was in a hurry and someone was following him, and I would know that man if I ever saw him again.
Q: And right before the three successive shots you saw a bullet hit in the middle of Dealey Plaza, is that correct?
A: Repeat that, please.
Q: Right before hearing the three successive shots you saw a bullet hit in the middle of Dealey Plaza, right?
A: No, sir, upon hearing the three successive shots, sir, I saw one, one of those three hit in Dealey Plaza in the grass.
Q: I see. Did you ever go and look for the hole where it hit?
A: No, sir, I have not.
Q: Did you ever try to recover the pellet?
A: No, sir, I have not.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that the three, that is, the group of these three shots were equally spaced, that is, the space of time between the first and second was just about the same as that between the second and third?
A: The three shots were consecutively.
Q: I take it then that you would deny that there was one shot and then a relatively long period and then two fast shots. Is that correct?
A: Yes, I sure would.
Q: I take it -- go ahead, sir.
A: I am sorry, sir, go ahead. I said I heard one shot, there was a pause and then I heard three consecutive shots.
Q: I take it then that you would also deny that of those three successive shots, there were two rapid ones and then a relatively long period and then a third one. Is that right?
A: Yes, I would.
MR. DYMOND: That's all, sir.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Just one more question, Mr. Carr. Would you just take your -- would you just take your time and in your own words describe with reference to the photomap the direc- tion of that shot which you observed furrowing on through the grass, from what area to what area, could you describe that, from what point to what point?
A: The shot was fired from somewhere in here.
Q: Just a minute, sir. This is going to be written down, what do you mean by "in here," from somewhere to where?
A: From this direction in here that shot was fired.
Q: You are indicating, to begin with, the grassy knoll area by the picket fence. Is that right?
A: Yes, sir, this is the first thing that attracted by attention as I explained to you before.
Q: But the direction would have been from there to where?
A: To in this vicinity right here (indicating).
Q: Well, if you carry the line down, would you identify some building or something on the map so that we will know precisely what you mean?
A: Yes, I will say the Criminal Courts Building right here (indicating).
Q: If the shot would have continued, you mean to say --
MR. DYMOND: I object to leading the witness, Your Honor.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: I will rephrase the question. If the shot had continued --
A: If the shot had not hit the grass, it would have hit the Criminal Courts Building, sir.
MR. GARRISON: That's all I have.
FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Just a couple of questions. Mr. Carr, is it your testimony that you saw this bullet furrowing through the grass?
A: I saw the grass come up.
Q: You saw the grass come up?
A: Yes.
Q: And from that you are telling us from what direction the shot came and where it would have gone if it would have kept on going. Is that right?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: That's all.
THE COURT: Is Mr. Carr released from the obligations of his subpoena?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You are excused as a witness.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Let everybody have a seat, Sheriff. Now, you see, it is about one minute to 12:00. We are going to recess for lunch. Let everybody have a seat. Gentlemen of the Jury, as I have so many times, I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case with one another or anyone else. It is very, very important that you adhere to my instructions. With those instructions, I will turn you over to the Sheriffs, and we will be in recess for lunch. You are released under your same bond, Mr. Shaw.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, a Deputy Official Court Reporter, in and for the State of Louisiana, authorized and empowered by law to administer oaths and to take the depositions of witnesses under L.R.S. 13:961.1, as amended, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is true and correct as taken by me in the above-entitled and numbered cause(s). I further certify that I am not of counsel nor related to any of the parties to this cause or in anywise interested in the event thereof.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, on the 26th day of May, 1969.
/s/ Paul W. Williams
DEPUTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
STATE OF LOUISIANA

President John F Kennedy's brain was kept for forensics...this went missing

The Kings Cross Sting was investigating the shooting of the President John F. Kennedy

The following is from Volume VII of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS.

---------------------------------------------------------------


PART III. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MATERIALS

      (114)  On April 22, 1965, then Senator Robert F. Kennedy
sent a letter to Dr. Burkley directing him to transfer in person
the autopsy material being kept at the White House to Mrs. Evelyn
Lincoln, the personal secretary of President Kennedy, for
safekeeping at the National Archives.  The letter also said that
Mrs. Lincoln was being instructed that the material was not to be
released to anyone without Robert Kennedy's written permission and
approval.  This demonstrates Robert Kennedy's firm control over
the disposition of the materials.

      (115)  In response to this directive, Dr. Burkley notified
the Protective Research Division of Senator Kennedy's request.
Before transferring the material, Bouck, Burkley and other Secret
Service personnel carefully inventoried all the items present. 
This was the first official inventory of these materials.

      (116)  On April 26, 1965, Burkley and Bouck transferred the
materials to Evelyn Lincoln.  A letter from Burkley to Lincoln
documenting the exchange included the inventory, which documented
that a stainless steel container 7 by 8 inches in diameter,
containing gross material was transferred.  On the last page of
the inventory, Lincoln wrote: "Received, April 26, 1965, in room
409, National Archives, Washington, D.C., from Dr. Burkley and
Robert Bouck."  At the time of the transfer, the items now
missing, which are those enumerated under item No. 9 of the
inventory, were allegedly present. 

      (117)  In his testimony before the committee, Bouck stated
that he is quite positive all the autopsy-related material that
came into his possession was given to Mrs. Lincoln at the time of
the 1965 transfer. He also stated that he was uncertain whether
Dr. Burkley had custody of the brain, but that if the brain was
part of the autopsy materials in the custody of the Secret
Service, it was transported to the National Archives. 

      (118)  Dr. Burkley clarified this issue, saying that the
stainless steel container mentioned in the inventory held the
brain and that he saw the bucket in April 1965, when he and Bouck
transferred the autopsy materials to Lincoln. Since this transfer,
Dr. Burkley maintains that he has had no further knowledge of or
association with these materials. 

      (119)  Mrs. Lincoln was not an employee of the National
Archives during this period; she was only assisting in the
transfer of the official papers and items of President Kennedy and
in this capacity occupied an office in the National Archives. 
Consequently, although the autopsy materials were in the confines
of the building the National Archives did not have authority or
responsibility for them. 

      (120)  The next documented transaction involving the
materials transferred to Mrs. Lincoln occurred on October 29,
1966, when Mr. Burke Marshall, on behalf of the executors of the
John F. Kennedy estate, sent a letter to Lawson B. Knott, the
Administrator of the General Services Administration, outlining
an agreement for formal transfer of materials related to the
autopsy to the U.S. Government. 

      (121)  Pursuant to this agreement, which constituted a deed
of gift, Burke Marshall met with various representatives of the
Government on October 31, 1966, in room 6-W-3 of the National
Archives to transfer formally the materials related to the
autopsy.  These materials were contained in a locked footlocker
for which Ms. Angela Novello, the personal secretary to Robert F.
Kennedy, produced a key. Others in attendance for the transfer
were William H. Brewster, special assistant to the general counsel
GSA, who unlocked and opened the footlocker; Harold F. Reis,
executive assistant to the Attorney General Robert H. Bahruer
Archivist of the United States; Herman Kahn, Assistant Archivist
for Presidential libraries and James Rhoads, the Deputy Archivist
of the United States.  After Brewster opened the footlocker,
Marshall and Novello departed. 

      (122) Bahmer, Reis, Rhoads, Kahn, and Brewster then removed
all the material from the footlocker and inspected it.  The
footlocker contained a carbon copy of the letter from Robert F.
Kennedy to Burkley on April 22, 1965, and the original letter from
Burkley to Lincoln on April 26, 1965, which also listed on the
itemized inventory list the materials present at that transfer. 

      (123)  Upon inspection, the officials realized that the
footlocker did not contain any of the material listed under item
No. 9 of the inventory.  This material included:

      1 plastic box, 9 by 6 1/2 by 1 inches, paraffin blocks of
            tissue sections.
      1 plastic box containing paraffin blocks of tissue sections
            plus 35 slides.
      A third box containing 84 slides.
      1 stainless steel container, 7 by 8 inches in diameter,
            containing gross material.
      3 wooden boxes, each 7 by 3 1/2 by 1 1/4 inches, containing
            58 slides of blood smears taken at various times
            during President Kennedy's lifetime. 
      
      (124) The last date these items were accounted for was the
April 26, 1965 transfer of the autopsy materials to Lincoln.

      (125) The committee contacted Lincoln to determine what
happened to the materials in item No. 9, the missing materials,
following their documented transfer to her in April 1965. She
informed the committee of an interview and subsequent affidavit
that Burkley and Bouck brought her some materials in the spring
of 1965 that Dr. Burkley identified as being related to the
autopsy of the President.  She recalled that these materials
arrived in a box or boxes, and that within 1 day she obtained a
flat trunk or footlocker from the Archives personnel to which she
transferred the materials.  She added that these materials were
kept in a security room in her office in the National Archives. 

      (126)  Mrs. Lincoln stated that within approximately 1
month, Robert F. Kennedy telephoned her and informed her that he
was sending Angela Novello, his personal secretary, to move the
footlocker that Dr. Burkley had transferred.  She believed they
wanted the materials moved to another part of the Archives,
presumably where Robert F. Kennedy was storing other materials. 
Angela Novello soon came to her office with Herman Kahn, Assistant
Archivist for Presidential Libraries, and one or more of his
deputies, to take the trunk. Lincoln believes she had Novello sign
a receipt for the materials, which was Lincoln's routine practice,
but she is uncertain where it would be today. Lincoln also said
that she gave Novello both keys to the trunk.  She added that the
trunk was never opened while it was in her office. 

      (127) Lincoln had no further direct contact with the
material, but did state that after the assassination of Robert
Kennedy, she began to wonder what happened to it.  Consequently,
she contacted Kenneth O'Donnell, former aide to President Kennedy,
to make sure the family was aware of its existence. Mrs. Lincoln
said it was her understanding that Mr. O'Donnell then called
Senator Edward Kennedy, subsequently calling her back to tell her
everything was under control. 

      (128)  Because of Lincoln's statement and other reports that
Novello produced the key to the footlocker in December 1966, the
committee interviewed Novello and also obtained an affidavit.  She
informed the committee that she had no recollection of handling
a footlocker, of possessing a key or keys to such a footlocker,
or of handling any of the autopsy materials. 

      (129)  The committee also contacted Burke Marshall and
Senator Edward Kennedy to determine their knowledge of the missing
materials. Senator Kennedy indicated that he did not know what
happened to the materials, or who last had custody of them. 

      (130)  While Burke Marshall also maintained that he had no
actual knowledge of the disposition of the materials, he said it
was his speculative opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and
disposed of these materials himself, without informing anyone
else. Marshall said Robert Kennedy was concerned that these
materials would be placed on public display in future years in an
institution such as the Smithsonian and wished to dispose of them
to eliminate such a possibility. Marshall emphasized that he does
not believe anyone other than Robert Kennedy would have known what
happened to the materials and is certain that obtaining or
locating these materials is no longer possible. 

      (131)  Since Marshall offered the opinion without any
verification, the committee continued to search for the missing
materials and to examine any issue related to the autopsy
materials in general. The committee interviewed Harold F. Reis,
Executive Assistant to the Attorney General who attended the 1966
transfer of the autopsy materials to the National Archives, as
well as Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General in 1966, to determine
their knowledge of the missing materials. Clark stated that he
initiated the action to acquire the materials transferred in the
October 1966 deed of gift pursuant to Public Law 89-318, enacted
on November 2, 1965.  This law provided that the acquisition by
the United States of certain items of evidence pertaining to the
assassination of President Kennedy had to be completed within the
year.  When Clark learned the time limit for obtaining the
evidence was approaching, he contacted Robert Kennedy, who was not
sympathetic to the Government's need to acquire the autopsy
material. Rather heated negotiations ensued between Clark and
Burke Marshall, the Kennedy family representative, which resulted
in the October 29, 1966 agreement constituting the deed of gift.
Clark stated that he had only requested transfer of the autopsy
photographs and X-rays and did not recall any discussions with
Robert Kennedy about any other autopsy materials. Consequently,
the brain and the tissue segments were not an issue in the
procedures and negotiations during the October 1966 transfer. The
committee could not ascertain if the physical specimens were ever
discussed in the negotiations, what type of approval Robert
Kennedy gave for transforming the materials, or what procedure was
employed to separate the photographs and X-rays from the material
now missing.

      (132)  The next reference to the missing materials and the
other autopsy materials in the custody of the National Archives
occurred in 1968. Ramsey Clark, the Attorney. General, arranged
for an independent review of the autopsy evidence by a group of
pathologists-commonly referred to as the Clark panel--as a result
of growing skepticism concerning the assassination and Warren
Commission investigation.  In a memorandum to the files on
February 13,1969, Thomas J. Kelley, the Assistant Director of the
Secret Service, reflected on the report of the Clark panel, in
which the physicians had commented that the materials they
reviewed were included on the inventory list that accompanied the
letter from Burkley to Lincoln on April 26, 1965.  Kelley asserted
that this reference to the autopsy materials by the Clark panel
physicians was phrased in this manner because the doctors did not
have access to the materials listed as comprising item No. 9 on
the inventory list.  The memorandum also noted that after
discovering in October 1966 that these items were missing,
Archives personnel conducted a careful search but could not
determine their location. 

      (133)  After discussing the "missing" materials with Harry
R. Van Cleve, Jr., General Counsel to the General Services
Administration, and agreeing that they should attempt to ascertain
their disposition, Kelley said he would contact Dr. Burkley. 
Kelley's memorandum related the following:

            [T]hat after turning all of this material over
      to Mrs. Lincoln [on April 26] [Burkley] never saw nor
      heard anything about its disposition, and that he was
      surprised to hear that it was not with the remainder
      of the material he turned over to Mrs. Lincoln. After
      discussing the problem, Dr. Burkley offered to call
      Mrs. Lincoln. He did this in my presence and Mrs.
      Lincoln told him that all of the material he turned
      over to her was placed in a trunk or footlocker; that
      it was locked, and that to her knowledge it was never
      opened nor the contents disturbed by her. She said,
      however, that sometime after its receipt all of the
      material concerning the assassination, with which she
      was working, was turned over to Angie Novello, Robert
      Kennedy's secretary. 
      
      (134)  The memorandum further related that Dr. Burkley told
Kelley that Henry Giordano, a former White House driver, was
working with Lincoln at the time of the transfer and was then
employed in Senator Kennedy's office.                           
    
      (135)  After contacting Van Cleve again and advising him of
the contact with Burkley, Kelley related the following:

      I * * * further advised him that, in my opinion, we
      should not contact Giordano. He agreed with this and
      stated he felt that the inquiry would have to remain
      as it now stands; that perhaps we were borrowing
      trouble in exploring it any further, and assured me
      that the Archivist had made a thorough search of all
      of the material on hand to make sure that the
      material in question had not been received by the
      Archivist at another time or under other
      circumstances.

      (136)  Thus, the General Services Administration, which
oversees the National Archives, decided not to pursue the search
for the missing materials any further. The officials involved were
apparently satisfied with knowing that the National Archives did
not have any responsibility in their disappearance and did not
wish to instigate trouble by pursuing any investigation.

      (137)  In 1971, a controversy, not directly involving the
missing materials, arose over the chain of custody of the autopsy
materials being stored in the National Archives and who should
have access to them.  John Nichols, a pathologist, began court
proceedings in the Federal courts, challenging the agreement of
October 29, 1966, which contains several restrictions limiting
public access to the autopsy materials.  An issue raised by the
suit was whether the Kennedy family ever had any legal right to
control the autopsy materials at any time and, consequently,
whether any deed of gift from the family which contained
restrictions limiting public access could be valid.

      (138)  Both the Federal District Court and the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the agreement.  The Court of appeals
stated that the "letter of agreement of October 29, 1966 is a
valid, binding agreement and that the restrictions imposed thereby
are reasonable." 

      (139)  The legal department of the Congressional Research
Service analyzed the Nichols case for the committee. The CRS noted
that while the "Nichols decision represents only the determination
of one circuit until the question is addressed elsewhere it would
seem to represent 'the state of the law?'"  The CRS stated that
until the April 1965 transfer, the autopsy materials were "in
Government hands with no intervening transfer of like having
occurred." It then observed:

            At this point, however, as suggested in the
      November 4, 1966, Treasury Department memorandum * *
      * the transfer to the Kennedy family may have been
      interpreted by some as indication of U.S. recognition
      of Kennedy family rights in the items so transferred.
      At some point thereafter, either upon delivery to the
      Archives in 1965 or upon acceptance of the letter of
      gift of October 1966, the materials may be regarded
      as having been either (1) returned to their rightful
      owner, the United States Government, or (2) donated
      by properly executed deed of gift to the United
      States, thereby resulting in relinquishment of
      Kennedy family rights in them. 

      (140)  The CRS ended by saying that two conclusions are
irrefutable. First, the autopsy photographs and X-rays are now the
property of the United States; and second, the letter of agreement
between the Government and the Kennedy family remains enforceable. 
  
      (141)  The committee also interviewed Archives personnel to
ascertain their present position regarding the missing materials.
In response to committee requests, Trudy H. Peterson, Assistant
to the Deputy Archivist of the United States, prepared a written
statement.  In this document, Peterson noted that just prior to
the October 1966 transfer of the materials to the Archives, the
locked footlocker was brought to the National Archives building,
although she does not specify from where.  This suggests that
after Novello allegedly took the material from the office of Mrs.
Lincoln, it may have been moved from the Archives building as
opposed to only being moved to another part of the building as
Mrs. Lincoln speculated.) Peterson also says that Robert Bahmer,
the Archivist of the United States in 1966, believed that sometime
before the transfer of the materials as a gift, Herman Kahn, the
Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries supervised the
acceptance of the footlocker, along with several other boxes of
Robert Kennedy's materials, for courtesy storage in vault 6-W-3.
Peterson further stated that Herman Kahn, now dead, may have been
the only Archives employee present for the transfer and that no
record of delivery is available. 

      (142)  In response to a subsequent committee inquiry
concerning Herman Kahn, Peterson stated that Kahn dealt with
members and representatives of the Kennedy family during 1964-68
on numerous issues, including the courtesy storage of Robert
Kennedy materials.  He was present for the October 1966 transfer
and, according to Marion Johnson of the National Archives, was one
of the original holders of the combination to the safe cabinet in
which the autopsy material was stored.  Kahn also allegedly
accompanied Novello when Novello apparently removed the autopsy
materials from the office of Lincoln. 

      (143)  In response to another committee request, the Office
of Presidential Libraries conducted a thorough but unsuccessful
search of the office files for 1965-66 for documentation regarding
the transfer of the autopsy materials to the physical custody of
the Archives.  Additionally, two members of the Presidential
Libraries staff who worked under Herman Kahn at that time stated
in interviews and affidavits that they could not recall any
pertinent details concerning the autopsy materials. The staff of
the John F. Kennedy Library also reviewed their files, with
negative results.  Further, one Archives employee, Marion Johnson,
Archivist, Office of the National Archives, National Archives and
Records Service, remembered that he became aware of the footlocker
containing the autopsy materials shortly before the October 31,
1966 transfer, but was not aware of its contents until after the
transfer.  Additionally, at the request of the committee, on July
18, 1978, Clarence Lyons and Trudy Peterson conducted a thorough
but unsuccessful search of the security storage vault for the
tissue sections and the container of gross material. 

      (144)  Given these efforts and findings, it appears that
Kahn and Novello removed the autopsy material from the office of
Mrs. Lincoln shortly after April 1965. The material was then
either kept in another part of the Archives, probably a Robert
Kennedy courtesy storage area, or removed from the building to a
location designated by Robert Kennedy. The circumstantial evidence
would seem to indicate that Robert Kennedy then decided to retain
possession of all physical specimen evidence and transferred only
the autopsy photographs and X-rays to the Government. The
committee has not been able to verify how or when the item No. 9
materials were removed from the other autopsy materials or what
subsequently happened to them.
      
PART IV. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE THE MISSING MATERIALS
      
      (145)  After failing to determine the fate of the missing
materials by tracing that chain of custody, the committee
investigated the possibility that someone had placed the missing
autopsy items all of which were physical specimens taken from the
body of President Kennedy, in the final grave on reinterment, on
March 14, 1967.  The persons contacted who were present for the
ceremony could not recall any additional package or material being
placed in the grave. The Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery from 1951 to 1972 John Metzler, informed the committee
that he attended the burial of the President and the reinterment. 
At the time of burial, the coffin was placed in a "Wilbur" vault,
which has a lid and vault that operate on a tongue and groove
system. Tar is placed on the points of contact of the grooves to
insure a tight fit and permanent seal. Metzler witnessed the
lowering of the lid and the sealing of the vault, and believed
that the only method to open the vault subsequently would be to
break the lid on the main portion of the vault. 

      (146)  Metzler supervised the reinterment in 1967 and was
present at all phases of the transfer: from the opening of the old
site through the transfer by crane of the vault to the closing of
the new site Metzler said there was no way anyone could have
placed anything in the coffin or vault during the transfer without
his seeing it.  Metzler also said that nothing could have been
placed in the vault since 1963 because there was no indication of
damage to the vault indicating any disturbance.  Metzler stated
further that no one placed anything in the new or old gravesite
besides the vault.  

      (147)  In the course of its investigation the committee
contacted numerous other people in an unsuccessful attempt to
locate the missing materials. They included:

      1. Dr. James J. Humes, autopsy pathologist;
      2. George Dalton, former White House aide and assistant to
            Mrs. Lincoln at the National Archives;
      3. Edith Duncan, administrative assistant to Robert Bouck,
            Protective Research Section, Secret Service;
      4. Joseph D. Giordano, former White House aide and
            assistant to Mrs. Lincoln at the National Archives;
      5. Frank Mankiewicz, former assistant to Robert F. Kennedy;
      6. Harry Van Cleve, former General Counsel of the General
            Services Administration;
      7. Lawrence O'Brien, former aide to President Kennedy;
      8. David Powers, former aide to President Kennedy;
      9. Ken Fienberg, aide to Senator Edward Kennedy;
      10. P.J. Costanzo, Superintendent of Arlington National
            Cemetery;
      11. Dr. James Boswell, autopsy pathologist;
      12. Dr. Pierre Finck, autopsy pathologist;
      13. Adm. George Galloway, commanding officer of the
            National Naval Medical Center in 1963;
      14. Capt. John H. Stover, commanding officer of the U.S.
            Naval  Medical School in 1963;
      15. Bruce Bromley, former Justice Department attorney who
            was called briefly from private practice to serve as
            counsel to the Clark panel;
      16. Carl Eardley, former Justice Department official;
      17. Harold Reis, former Justice Department official;
      18. Sol Lindenbaum, former Justice Department official;
      19. National Archives personnel; and
      20. Thomas J. Kelley, Assistant Director of the U.S. Secret
            Service.

PART V. CONCLUSIONS
 
      (148)  Despite these efforts, the committee was not able to
determine precisely what happened to the missing materials. The
evidence indicates that the materials were not buried with the
body at reinterment. It seems apparent that Angela Novello did
remove the footlocker containing to the materials from the office
of Mrs. Lincoln at the direction of Robert Kennedy, and that
Herman Kahn had knowledge of this transaction.  After the removal
from Lincoln's office, Robert Kennedy most likely acquired
possession of or at least personal control over these materials. 
Burke Marshall's opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and disposed
of these items himself to prevent any future public display
supports this theory.

      (149)   There are least two possible reasons why Robert
Kennedy would not have retained the autopsy photographs and
X-rays.  First, the only materials retained were physical
specimens from the  body of his brother: Tissue sections, blood
smear slides, and the container of gross material.  He may have
understandably felt more strongly about preventing the misuse of
these physical materials than the photographs and X-rays.  Second,
the Justice Department under Ramsey Clark pushed hard to acquire
the photographs and X-rays but did not request the physical
materials. Even if Robert Kennedy had wished to prevent the
release of all the autopsy materials, he was not in a position to
do so when confronted with Justice Department demands.

      (150)   Consequently, although the committee has not been
able to uncover any direct evidence of the fate of the missing
materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert
Kennedy either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered
them inaccessible.