Full Article Archive
Probe Back Issues
CTKAformerly published Probe Magazine. Most of the articles on this site first appeared in Probe.
If you would like to submit an article to be considered for publication on this site, please send mail to us at here.
Jim DiEugenio's Upcoming appearances and radio Interviews:
October 16-19th Passing the Torch Conference, at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh
November 21-24, November in Dallas, at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas
General Giap Knew
Review of Destiny
Betrayed, 2nd edition
The Bonds of Secrecy, by
Saint John Hunt
Fires the First Salvo
for Fifty Years
The mystery of CE163
Citizen Wilcke Dissents
JFK: The French Connection, by Peter Kross Review by Seamus Coogan
on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012
KENNEDY & ME: A Very Good Book With A Few Pages of Trouble
Jim DiEugenio analyzes and summarizes Larry Hancock's
interesting and unique new book Nexus:
The CIA and Political Assassination
Jim DiEugenio reviews the work of Chris Matthews on the life and death of President Kennedy, including his latest biography, "Jack Kennedy: Elusive hero".
IN DALLAS: LBJ, the Pearl Street Mafia, and the Murder of President
The Connally Bullet Powerful evidence that Connally was hit by a bullet from a different assassin, by Robert Harris
Joseph Green on the late Manning Marable's new full scale biography of Malcolm X.
JFK and the Majestic Papers: The History of a Hoax by Seamus Coogan
- and -
Wikipedia? by JP Mroz and Jim DiEugenio (3 part series)
is Anton Batey?
Exclusive excerpts from Mitchell Warriner's long
awaited new book on
A Review of John McAdams’ JFK Assassination
Using Oswald’s rifle, appropriate ammunition and human skulls, Olivier undertook to duplicate JFK’s wounds. Describing Commission Exhibit # 862 – a photograph of a blasted skull from his tests – Olivier testified, “This particular skull blew out the right side in a manner very similar to the wounds of the President … We found that this bullet could do exactly – could make the type of wound that the President received.”[viii] As anyone (but Warren loyalists, perhaps) can see, Olivier’s blasted test skull looked nothing at all like JFK. Whereas JFK’s forehead and right eye socket were fully intact, the right forehead and eye socket of Olivier’s skull were completely blasted away. This performance apparently earned him a coveted spot on Rockefeller’s team.
The other members of the team fell under a cloud when Pittsburgh
coroner, Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, charged that, “the Commission has
set up a panel of governmental sycophants to defend the Warren
Report.” In a May 5, 1975 press release, Wecht charged that “all
the members of the panel appointed by the Rockefeller Commission
have strong ties to the federal government and close professional
relationships with individuals who have formerly participated
in studies defending the Warren Report.”
Wecht emphasized Belin’s Warren Commission roots. Wecht also
charged that, “The (medical) panel itself is made up of people
who have been associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner’s
Office, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology,
and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities
which either supplied the members of the original autopsy team
or from which selected members of a previous panel had been appointed
by the Justice Department in 1968 (the Clark Panel) to defend
the Warren Report.”[ix] Their
subsequent performance more than justified Wecht’s concerns.
As I explored in my multi-part essay, “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” Rockefeller’s “experts” made myriad, obvious errors, errors obvious even to non-physicians,, including some of the same mistakes the Clark panelists had made. Though beyond the scope of this review, interested parties are encouraged to read it. It almost goes without saying that, despite the fact that error tends to be random, going one way one time, and another the next time around, amazingly, all of the errors of David Belin’s patriotic underlings favored the government’s lone gunman scenario.
The bias of the panel was perhaps best exemplified by the remarks of panelist Robert R. McMeekin, MD, the Chief of the Division of Aerospace Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: “The motion of the President’s head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear.” [x]In other words, against known evidence, common sense, and even his fellow panelists, McMeekin said that JFK’s rearward jolt is proof the shot came from behind. No authority but McMeekin has ever taken this position. Fellow panelist Werner Spitz, MD, for example, rightly concluded that, “It is impossible to conclude from the motion of the President’s head and body following the head shot, from which direction the shots came.”[xi] Similarly, Panelist Fred Hodges, MD said that, “The motion of the President’s head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion … .”[xii]
Although we later learned from the House Select Committee about the many errors of the professor’s “blue-ribbon” experts, even the HSCA was far from faultless. [In my on-line essay, I similarly take a hatchet to the medical/autopsy findings of the House Select Committee.[xiii]]
The point to be emphasized is not that the men who worked on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the House Select Committee were not recognized authorities. They were. Nor is it that they were less than perfect. No one is. It is rather that, in interpreting clues to the murder – the trail of bullet fragments on the X-rays, the location of the bruising on the abrasion collar in JFK’s back wound or the snapping of JFK’s skull – the government’s experts invariably found that the evidence supported the government’s original conclusion: Oswald did it. Or at least that the shots emanated from Oswald’s alleged position, above and behind. Their errors are plain as day. No advanced degree or university appointment is required to see them. Thus, expert opinion from government-appointed “blue-ribbon” experts is not always as hard, or as reliable, as the John McAdamses of the world would have you think. Who, after all, paid these fiddlers? Perhaps more importantly, who choose them, and why?
Just as McAdams sedulously ignores the peccadillos of witnesses who say what he wants to hear, he just as sedulously goes hammer and tong after witnesses who say what he doesn’t want to hear.
A case in point is the publicized account of the deaf mute, pro-conspiracy
witness Ed Hoffman. He described seeing two men behind the
fence atop the grassy knoll, including one who he believed
had fired at JFK. McAdams refutes Hoffman by proffering a very
selective version of events. McAdams claims that it wasn’t
until June 28, 1967, almost four years after the fact, that
Hoffman finally “contacts the Dallas office of the FBI, and
tells of two men whose actions he thinks suspicious” (p. 260).
He then gives the FBI’s unflattering report of an agent’s 1967
interview with Hoffman.[xiv] To
discredit him further, he cites unflattering remarks by other
witnesses, including some from Hoffman’s father. But McAdams
doesn’t tell the whole story, not even close.
McAdams never lets on that Hoffman had great difficulty conveying what he’d seen to others because his writing ability was poor and because almost no one in those days could translate sign language. Nor does McAdams admit that Hoffman did not wait until 1967 to describe what he’d seen on the day of the assassination. Right after the shots rang out, Hoffman said he went to the Dallas Police Department and to the Dallas FBI office to try to describe what he’d seen, only to be rebuffed because no one could understand the deaf mute.[xv]
Hoffman said he also told his father on the day of the assassination. But his father didn’t want him going public for fear of what might happen. Nor does McAdams mention that Hoffman tried to tell his pro-conspiracy story again a few days later, on Thanksgiving. This time to his uncle Robert Hoffman, a Dallas Police Detective who vouched for his nephew’s “character and truthfulness.” To back up the Bureau, McAdams similarly cheats the reader by not telling that Hoffman believed that the FBI agent who interviewed him in 1967 was hostile, tried to bribe him, and that what the FBI reported officially was false.
While it’s unknowable whether the FBI agent did correctly understand Hoffman, or treat him shabbily, the professor shows the sort of “academic” he is by taking the Bureau’s account at face value and withholding substantial contrary evidence, including the witness’ side of the story. This, though it’s pretty clear that FBI agents knew what their boss, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted. As the House Select Committee put it (though you’ll look in vain for it in McAdams’ book) , “It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the of the assassination.”[xvi] Other witnesses described the same sort of pressure Hoffman described.
Witness Wilbyrn Litchfield swore that the FBI had pressured him to retract his claim he’d seen LHO at Ruby’s Carousel Club.[xvii] Robert Oswald said the FBI threatened to deport Marina Oswald if she didn’t cooperate. [xviii] (Given Hoover’s fixation, one would have to be a real Warren loyalist to be confused about what the Bureau meant by “cooperate.”) Since these witnesses are not government officials or recognized authorities, Warren loyalists’ general response is to either ignore them or smear them, a la McAdams, and, a la McAdams again, to just take FBI evidence as gospel. But it is not so easy to dismiss credible government officials’ casting doubt on the Bureau:
John McCloy: … the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .
Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .
Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it.[xx]
These are just established, inconvenient facts. The Bureau successfully leaned on numerous witnesses to confirm Hoover’s conviction of Oswald. Predictably, McAdams does not deign to include “unpatriotic” nuggets such as these, including those sworn to under oath, admitted by government officials, or written as official conclusions, against the interests of the government itself, by government investigators – nuggets that show that the official investigative agency entrusted with solving the Crime of the Century could abuse truth as aggressively as any of the wacky conspiracists McAdams condemns.
Similarly, the professor also spares his readers other, contextually useful tales from the Bureau in the 1960s. For example, on July 28, 2002, AP reported revelations concerning long-suppressed horrors from the mid-1960s, “For more than 20 years, FBI headquarters in Washington (e.g. J. Edgar Hoover) knew that its Boston agents were using hit men and mob leaders as informants and shielding them from prosecution for serious crimes including murder.” It also reported that a known murderer was allowed by the FBI to go free, “as four innocent men were sent to prison in his place.”[xxv] Etc.
Setting aside for the moment the Bureau’s scabrous history under Hoover, and whether it’s sensible to credit the disputed account of as biased a source as the FBI on what Hoffman and other pro-conspiracy witnesses may have said, it’s worth noting something else McAdams withholds about the deaf mute: at least some of what he said was independently corroborated.
Echoing Hoffman’s early account that he’d seen two men behaving suspiciously behind the fence overlooking the grassy knoll was a railway worker, Lee Bowers. The man had a commanding view from his perch atop the signal box of the area behind the grassy knoll from which he observed two men.[xxvi]
Both the FBI and others reported that Hoffman claimed that, at the time of the shooting, he’d seen “a puff of smoke in the vicinity of where the two men” were standing behind the fence.[xxvii] Though McAdams uses a well-positioned Dealey Plaza witness, Sam Holland, to discredit part of Hoffman’s story (p. 15), he omits the fact that Holland, like Hoffman, had also said he saw smoke issue from atop the grassy knoll. (Moreover, like Hoffman, Holland also said that the FBI had falsified his own testimony.[xxviii] As usual, McAdams doesn’t mention this.)
Smoke coming from the grassy knoll atop Dealey Plaza is an obstacle to those who assume the absence of a grassy knoll gunman. (On his website, McAdams dismisses this by falsely, if hilariously, claiming that “modern firearms don't let off big puffs of smoke when they are fired,”[xxix] as if either Hoffman or Holland, or any of the other witnesses, had said they’d seen “big puffs of smoke.” “Big puffs” or no, many modern firearms do in fact emit smoke, including, although it’s likely irrelevant, Mannlicher Carcanos, as Douglas DeSalles, MD and Stanford Linear Accelerator physicist, Art Snyder, Ph.D., proved when they fired Mannlicher Carcanos in shooting tests.[xxx])
If Hoffman and Holland had been the only witnesses claiming they’d seen smoke, it’d be worth the attention McAdams gives it in his book: none. But in 1967 Josiah Thompson reported, “In all, at least seven people standing on the overpass saw smoke in the area of the parking lot and the stockade fence.”[xxxi] Thompson further noted that two Dallas Deputy Sheriffs had “independently reported being told by a witness or witnesses that smoke had been seen near the corner of the stockade fence.”[xxxii] That would seemingly take the number up to at least nine. “Then,” as author Anthony Summers pointed out, “there were the witnesses who actually claimed to have smelled gunpowder in the air. There were six of them, all either distinguished public figures or qualified to know what they were talking about.”[xxxiii] Among them were the mayor’s wife, Senator Ralph Yarborough, Congressman Ray Roberts.
Fifteen credible witnesses saying they’d either seen or smelled firearms-associated smoke at ground level in Dealey Plaza at the moment JFK was felled is an inconvenient obstacle for Warren loyalists, one that McAdams surmounts by entirely omitting it from his book. Instead, he goes after a deaf mute who was almost certainly misunderstood, a witness he crafts of straw by selecting and eliminating evidence that makes it easy to take him out at point blank range. Only Warren loyalists can fail to see the irony in how the punctilious professor has squarely placed himself among “advocates (who) selectively present information that serves their purposes.” (p. 77)
I highlight Hoffman because McAdams does. He is one of six witnesses discussed in a section entitled, “Witness Testimony of a Grassy Knoll Shooter?” (p. 13) Given that Hoffman was the very first witness McAdams presented, one might expect that Hoffman’s account was a core portion of the conspiracy canon. It isn’t. While authors Jim Marrs,[xxxiv] Bill Sloan[xxxv] and James Douglas give Hoffman a sympathetic ear, which this author encourages readers to examine for themselves, one will find Hoffman’s story in virtually none of the respected works of skeptics. It’s in none of the pro-conspiracy books published (unlike McAdams’s book) by university publishing houses. (All university-published books about the JFK case are pro-conspiracy.)
When not slashing deaf mutes, McAdams goes after witnesses who
described Kennedy’s injuries in a way that challenged the government’s
conclusions, particularly those I’ve cited. Since official evidence
– autopsy photos and the autopsy report – show that Kennedy had
a gaping wound to the antero-lateral portion of his skull (the
right-front side of his skull, in front of his ear), McAdams
takes pains to refute witness statements that this author compiled
that suggest otherwise.
The professor writes,
“The tour de force of selectively using testimony to reach a particular conclusion can be found in an essay by Gary Aguilar, who claims to have examined the testimony of forty-six witnesses to Kennedy’s wounds at Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital. Aguilar claims that forty-four of them saw a wound to the ‘back of the head,’ contradicting the autopsy photos and X-rays and suggesting a shot from the grassy knoll … To reach this number, however, Aguilar has to be massively selective in the testimony he uses and quite tendentious in how he interprets it.” (p. 28)
McAdams showcases the statements of Clint Hill as his first example of my tendentiously abusing evidence. He writes, “Clint Hill was the Secret Service agent who ran to the presidential limo after the shooting started and huddled over John and Jackie Kennedy on the wild ride to Parkland. Aguilar quotes him (correctly) as telling the Warren Commission that he saw a “large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the [president’s] (sic) head.” Aguilar interprets this statement as supporting his position (that JFK had a rearward skull wound) despite its vagueness. But Hill told National Geographic, in a TV special titled Inside the U.S. Secret Service, that there was a ‘gaping hole above the right ear about the size of my palm.’ (p. 29) ‘Above his right ear’ implies parietal bone and is consistent with the autopsy photos and X-rays.”
McAdams never mentions that I prefaced my witness compilation with, “It was not the author’s intent to list every comment ever made by every witness, but rather to gather the earliest, presumably most reliable, accounts for consideration and comparison.” That aside, apparently McAdams considers me massively selective and quite tendentious because I failed to include in my 1994 essay statements that Hill (may have) made to National Geographic in 2004. (I’ve not been able to get a copy of the video to verify McAdams’ assertions. For what it’s worth, in his new book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Hill has again described JFK’s skull damage as involving the upper right rear of the head.[xxxvi])
But McAdams is correct that I offered Hill as a witness who said JFK’s skull damage was rearward. I did so because Hill’s meaning seemed clear enough in the full quote I cited, from which the professor took only a snippet. Here’s what I originally wrote, a longer Hill quote:
“The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed ...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” (WC--V2:141)
Though McAdams doesn’t tell, I quoted more than just that. In the same essay, I also quoted Hill’s own 11/30/63 statement, in which he said that he “observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull. (WC--CE#1024, V18:744)” Perhaps there are readers who could read all that I wrote and yet agree with McAdams that I was wrong to believe that by “right rear,” Hill actually meant right rear. Nevertheless, by omitting much of what I wrote, McAdams has placed himself squarely among “advocates (who) selectively present information that serves their purposes.”
McAdams also takes aim at Bethesda autopsy technician, Jerrol Custer, who author David Lifton reported had said that, “the rear of the President’s head was blown off.” As David Mantik perfectly put it, McAdams “cites Jerrol Custer’s much later recall of the skull wound as being more accurate than his earlier description (which violates the rule that earlier reports are to be privileged over later ones). In any case, Custer’s wandering recollections for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) raise deep doubts about his (later) memory. McAdams has again employed special pleading, i.e., selecting evidence favorable to his side and ignoring the rest. (For a photo showing Custer demonstrating the occipital wound, see The Killing of a President by Robert Groden (p. 88).”[xxxvii]
Next, McAdams writes, “Aguilar quotes Doris Nelson, a Parkland nurse, as having been asked by conspiracy authors Robert Groden and Harry Livingstone whether the autopsy photo showing the back of the president’s head as being intact was accurate.” (p. 29) A quick check shows that’s not what I wrote. Rather, I said that the Boston Globe’s Ben Bradlee, Jr. had asked her, according to Groden and Livingstone.
Citing p. 454 of High Treason, I wrote, “As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her , ‘Did you get a good look at his head injuries?’ Nelson: ‘A very good look ...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head.’ Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: ‘No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher.’”[xxxviii]
This amusingly tendentious distortion aside, the professor “refutes” Nelson by sending readers to a photo apparently taken by an interviewer for Life Magazine. In it, Nelson seems to be holding her hand over the right side of her own head, apparently demonstrating JFK’s wound. But McAdams doesn’t explain, either in his book or in his on-line writings, why Nelson specifically rejected the wounds in an official autopsy photograph that Ben Bradlee, Jr. had showed her. Nor does he even mention other evidence we have from Nelson.
In his marvelously comprehensive, on-line compilation, Vince Palmara quotes the following from authors Groden and Livingstone, “Nurse Nelson drew a picture of the head wound, mostly in the parietal area, but well towards the rear of the head. Her drawing conflicts strongly with the official autopsy photograph. When she saw that picture she said immediately, “It’s not true…There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area (on the back of the head) was blown out.”[xxxix]
Though Nelson is indeed holding her hand over the right side of her head in the photo, she also apparently drew a diagram McAdams doesn’t mention that showed a large defect involving both the right side and the rear of JFK’s head, consistent with the vast majority of other witnesses. The professor brandishes Nelson’s photo as the definitive proof of where she really believed the skull wound was – solely on the right side of JFK’s head. Thus a witness demonstrating JFK’s head wound in a photo settles it. Unless it goes the wrong way. Then, you never hear about it.
The professor pocket vetoes 18 photos on pages 86, 87 and 88 of Robert Groden’s The Killing of a President:18 separate witnesses, including seven physicians, demonstrate JFK’s skull damage by placing their hands on the right rear of their own skulls. While most include the right side, above the ear, they all show that the area behind JFK’s right ear was also damaged. None point to damage in front of the ear. The photo of Charles Carrico, MD, for example, has him placing his own hand exactly where he described the wound to the Warren Commission and the HSCA, the top right rear portion of his head. The caption reads, “There was a large – quite a large – defect about here (pointing) on his head.”
McAdams feels strongly about Carrico. He takes after me for including him among my witnesses to a rearward head wound, and also for my not mentioning that Dr. Carrico had drawn a diagram for the Boston Globe that depicted a wound on the right side of Kennedy’s head. I confess I was unaware of that diagram when I wrote my compilation in 1994, but the doctor’s early descriptions seem clear enough. And Carrico’s later vacillations seem clear enough, too.
In my compilation, I wrote that Carrico had said, “(the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellartissue via packs instituted... .” (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
Arlen Specter asked him, “Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?”
Dr. Carrico: “Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said ‘5 by 7-cm’) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region.”
In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, “The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound.” (emphasis added). [xl]
I added: “Despite a fifteen-year consistent recollection, like several other Parkland physicians, Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a dramatic transformation when confronted by author (Gerald) Posner. On March 8, 1992 Posner reported Carrico said, ‘We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It (the location of the skull defect) was parietal bone...’.[xli] Both Posner and Carrico would have done well to have reviewed Carrico’s prior testimonies and affidavits before conducting interviews.”
Of course the professor shields his readers from this inconvenient information.
Thus, McAdams doesn’t lay a glove on, nor does he even address, the very essence of my inquiry. Namely, that, as I wrote, “despite over 40 witnesses’ having given opinions on the subject, not a single witness' earliest account acceptably described the anterolateral skull/scalp defect in JFK’s autopsy photographs. Why not? Second, while 45 of 46 witnesses were correct, JFK’s skull wound was on the right side, how could 44 wrongly agree the wound involved the skull’s rear, yet no one recall that it was where it should be - based on photographs - toward the front? In other words, if error is random, and if these authentic images prove the witnesses to have been in error, how could so many experienced witnesses, viewing the body in two very different locations, have been able to accurately identify on which side of JFK’s skull the wound was, yet be universally wrong the wound was more rearward than toward the front?”
This puzzle is particularly pesky given the fact that, as established authorities such as Elizabeth Loftus[xlii] and others[xliii][xliv] have shown, with the professor blithely ignoring them, studies prove that witnesses tend to be very good at accurately recalling “salient” details of witnessed events, the simple location of wounds certainly qualifying as “salient” to the treating doctors in Dallas and other credible witnesses.
Though McAdams ignores or dismisses most of early accounts of the doctors about where JFK’s skull damage was, he positively gushes over the anti-conspiracy implications of their early remarks about his throat wound. Referring to the low location in the neck given for that wound by resident physician Malcolm Perry, MD, and by Kennedy’s senior treating physician, neurosurgery professor Kemp Clark, McAdams writes, “these assessments come from admission notes of November 22, 1963 … long before any of the doctors could have learned of any controversy over the issue and ‘regularized’ their testimony.”
By now, readers will scarcely be surprised to learn that McAdams doesn’t apply the same standard regarding what these same witnesses said about JFK’s head injuries. In the same, ‘unregularized,’ admission notes,[xlv] brain surgeon Kemp Clark said that, “There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region … Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.” (WC--CE#392) By hand, Dr. Clark also wrote, “… There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region ... ." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10) In his 11-22-63 note, Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392)
And so it goes. Line after line, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, McAdams trudges tirelessly onward, selectively using testimony to reach a particular conclusion. Though readers may find that it’s perhaps a bit short on fact, and a tad thin on logic, JFK Assassination Logic more than compensates by being wonderfully long on misguided patriotism.
This iPhone and iPad app provides a wealth of info on the JFK case!
Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics
and the Kennedy Assassination
by Sherry G. Fiester
Forensics can be a complicated subject, yet Fiester provides the reader with easily understood, accurate, information. Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination is so comprehensive in its approach, this work should be used in the instruction of all new crime scene investigators nationwide. William LeBlanc, CFCSI
Buy it here