Head Shot- A Physicist Analyzes the Assassination

     

                                                             John Delane Williams

Andy Winiarczyk (Last Hurrah Book Shop) recently called me and suggested I might be interested in a newer book, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, by E. Paul Chambers. [1] Andy’s synopsis perked my interest. Chambers holds a Ph.D  in physics; Currently, he is working on development of renewable energy for Bellatrix Energy. As many of us who have become interested in pursuing the mysteries of the JFK assassination, Chambers is an outsider, or, as Baars [2] refers to them , a nucleator . A nucleator is a scientist with considerable expertise in an area of science who then applies their expertise to another area). Because of at least a slight similarity of backgrounds with Chambers (My first Ph.D. was in statistics [3]), I gladly accepted Andy’s suggestion. I was somewhat disappointed with portions of Chambers’ work(and, of course, there are criticisms).

Chambers organized his book into ten chapters, and like a lot of newcomers to research on the assassination, he takes the Warren Report to task—this seems to be a rite of passage for new critical assassination researchers. For myself, I am content that many researchers before me have done a sufficiently good job of criticism of the Warren Report that, in my opinion, we don’t need to have another proof that the Warren Report lacks credibility. [4] For those who do seek additional proofs, the book by Chambers is a worthy addition. Chambers uses Edward Epstein’s Inquest [5] as his guide to addressing the Warren Report in general, and the single bullet theory in particular. On the other hand, Chambers uses the works by Gerald Posner [6] and Vincent Bugliosi [7] to contrast his findings and interpretations.

Chambers states, regarding Bugliosi ,”Many in the news media and in the general public now consider Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History the last word on the subject.  However, his physics is wrong, and his science is, frankly, impossible.” [8] Chambers described his background thusly;  “My background in detonation physics and high speed photography of explosive events allows me to properly and accurately assess the scientific data set associated with the assassination.” [9]

The Beginnings of the Warren Commission

Chambers addresses the beginning meeting of the Warren Commission, which occurred on January 27, 1964. This was an emergency meeting, called to address allegations that Lee Harvey Oswald had been either an “undercover agent” or “paid informant” of the FBI. The only reference to the FBI “problem” was Bugliosi [10]. This is curious. Through of Freedom of Information request, Harold Weisberg secured the transcript of the first meeting of the Warren Commission and published it in toto, with interpretive notes. The transcript published by Weisberg [11] is a primary document, and perhaps the most important ever published about the manner in which the Commission would work. Why depend upon a second hand source of dubious merit when the primary source is available? Doing a good literature review is a necessary part of scientific research.

Science

Chambers goes to some length to explain the scientific process to a presumably less scientifically             sophisticated readership.  While he goes about saying scientific research is self-correcting, i.e., if someone either misinterpreted data, or simply had a non-representative data set, other researchers will point this out. He doesn’t make it clear how long this process might take. For example Galileo, whom Chambers refers to several times, suffered for his contributions to science. What he doesn’t mention is that Galileo’s experiments ran afoul of the church, which led to his imprisonment and excommunication from the church. He died as an excommunicant in 1642. The excommunication was removed in 1985, as I remember. In fairness, Chambers does cover the Galileo issue more thoroughly in the Epilogue. When science confronts those in control, acceptance may be a long time in coming. Yet another example of a scientist whose fame came years after his research being discarded and dying in scientific obscurity after giving up on his experiments was Gregor Mendel. Upon his death in 1884, his papers were all destroyed in a disagreement with the civil government on taxation of religious properties; Mendel was an abbot at a monastery . Only in the 20^th Century was his work appreciated for its importance. [12] Science is filled with controversies. Many years may pass before a view is finally accepted. Theories guide scientific practice, until more useful theories are developed. Theories are to be used only until they fail to correctly predict the outcomes of experiments. When they fail, they are to be discarded. Those who continue to believe in failed theories no longer continue to be scientist. Consider that a Flat Earth Society continues to exist. Unfortunately, Chambers oversimplification obscures this dialectic in science. Being a scientist is a lot messier than Chambers implies. Yet, by other comments in his book, I’m sure that he knows this.

                                                             The Medical Evidence

  

Chambers does a reasonably good review of the medical evidence. For me, I kept thinking, ‘Why has he not even referenced the extensive work of Douglas Horne’s seminal effort on the medical evidence, which was published about six months before Chambers finished his book? Horne’s exhaustive effort (over 1000 pages on the medical evidence alone) is the centerpiece on his report of the work of the Assassination Records Review Board. [13] In fairness to Chambers, his interest in the medical evidence was in relation to its usefulness in applying his knowledge base in physics.

Regarding the official autopsy performed in Bethesda, in Chambers view, the autopsy is of little value regarding reconstructing the facts of Kennedy’s death.  Most importantly the data are unstable. The head wound moves from the side of the head in the Zapruder film to the lower rear, occipital region, to the top of his head at the autopsy, to the top front of his head in the x-ray. These reports are inconsistent with both the Zapruder film and the reports of the physicians at Parkland Hospital. The Harper fragment was originally identified as an occipital bone (from the rear of Kennedy’s skull).  A…“ recent evaluation by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist, indicates that the bone is instead from the parietal (side) portion of the skull.”  [14] The Harper bone fragment being a parietal bone is consistent with the Zapruder film, showing a wound to the right side of Kennedy’s head. Using a blowup of Z-333, the only apparent wound is to the right side of Kennedy’s head; in Z-333, the top rear part of Kennedy’s head, hair and skull are intact. The results of the official autopsy are at variance with the Zapruder film.            

Was the Zapruder Film Altered?

In this chapter, I was hoping to see Chambers address the Zapruder film with his own independent analysis. Instead, he relies heavily upon  Wrone’s The Zapruder Film: Refraiming Kennedy’s Assassination [15 ]. Chambers dismisses in particular the work of a scholar who holds both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., David Mantik’s article in Assassination Science [16]. Rather than provide his own analysis regarding Mantik’s article, Chambers stated, “These works, have been widely criticized, however, as documents that distort facts and suffer from serious errors and omissions. A most telling argument against these claims has been advanced by Harold Weissberg in his books Whitewash and Never Again!” [17]. As an aside, Chambers refers to Mantik as a “medical doctor”. Mantik is a medical doctor, but also a Ph.D. physicist, or in that sense a colleague of Chambers. Lest one conclude that Weissberg had leveled this criticism at Mantik, Never Again! [18] was published in 1995; Mantik’s article was published in 1998. We know that Chambers was still writing the book as late as June 16, 2010 (from his references). Why did he not review Doug Horne’s chapter (almost 200 pages long) in Inside the Assassination Record Review Board [19], which was published in 2009? Horne explains at length how two different groups worked separately on November 23-24, 1963 on the Zapruder film at a C.I.A. secret facility in the Kodak plant in Rochester, New York. Earlier, Horne described in detail the workings of one of the groups working in the C.I.A. laboratory [20].  He also points out that he sees Wrone’s work to be less than honest. Wrone reported that Horne indicated that Time turned the Zapruder film over to be altered. In the article by Horne, a report of an interview with Homer McMahon mentions the Secret Service delivered the film to the C.I.A. film laboratory in Rochester, NY. [21]

I’ll also offer an observation of my own. Whether or not there was an alteration, there is a clear discontinuity in the Zapruder film between Z-132 and Z-133. Z-132 shows the motorcycles preceding the limousine; the limousine is not yet shown. Z-133 shows the limousine after it has already made the turn and is heading down Elm Street [22]. Missing is the entirety of the turn, which reportedly had limousine driver William Greer driving poorly, almost driving the limousine up on the North curb near the Texas School Book Depository’s front door. The limousine would have covered a minimum of 20 feet, and perhaps as much as 40 feet between Z-132 and Z- 133. The reported speed of the limousine was 12 mph. At 12 mph, the limousine would travel 17.6 feet a second. As it happened, the Zapruder film had approximately 18 frames per second, so that at least 20 frames are missing between Z-132 and Z-133. [22] While Zapruder might have stopped the camera momentarily, the turn of the limousine onto Elm Street is definitely missing. Whether the frames are missing by Zapruder’s hand, or by an alterationist, it is propitious to the Secret Service that the incompetence of the Secret Service driver is hidden from the public eye.  In my opinion, Chambers, like many of the early critics of the Warren Report, used the Zapruder film for doing their calculations to discredit the Warren Report.  Of course, if alterations were made, those alterations are a withholding of facts regarding the assassination and can by themselves be seen as being part of a conspiracy. Some of the other missing information might also be due to Zapruder’s handling of the camera, for example, the apparent stop at the time of the fatal shot, which is not apparent on the film. There are other possible alterations that would not be at the hand of Zapruder. Whether there are alterations or not, it seems simplistic to view the film in an all or nothing at all manner. The film is not a perfect representation of reality even if there were no alterations. Insofar as alterations are hypothesized, do they render the film worthless? I think not. In any event, the film is ambiguous, but useful.

The Shooter on the Grassy Knoll

Presumably the raison-d’etre of Chambers’ book was the process of identification of the type of weapon used in Dealey Plaza for the fatal shot, and the location of the shooter. To do this, he was relying heavily on the Zapruder film, and hence the concern that the film be authentic, though not all of his analysis is tied to the Zapruder film. Chambers asserts that the bullet that killed Kennedy was likely a small caliber frangible round that fragmented inside his head. That it was a frangible bullet is deduced from the many bullet fragments seen by witnesses, without an exit wound; Chambers surmised that the point of entry was the right side of his head where the flap was visible after the shot (and on the Zapruder film as well). “The bullet that caused the extensive tissue jetting observed in Z-313 was a high velocity round traveling at or near 4000 ft/sec. “ [23] (A Mannlicher-Carcano missile travels at about half that speed). The blood that spewed out of Kennedy’s head would have been forced through the entrance wound, there being no exit wound because of the frangible bullet. The likely weapon to deliver this velocity would be the Winchester .220 Swift. I would point out that the shot would be consistent with a Winchester Swift, but could have been a custom made rifle, or some other rifle with similar ballistics characteristics to the Winchester .220 Swift. I lack the expertise to follow that up. However, I would only elevate the Winchester .220 Swift to being a likely candidate, and not exclusive to all other possibilities, which surely would include custom made weapons. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that a conclusion such as Chambers makes in identifying the model of gun used is not a statistical interpretation, but only that the model may be a likely candidate. In a later chapter, Chambers acknowledges that the fatal shot was likely fired a Winchester .220 Swift, or a rifle with similar characteristics. It would be interesting however, to check into the distribution of these (and similar) guns that were existing in 1963. Chambers also surmises that the Grassy Knoll was the most likely place where the shooter was located. While Chambers does an excellent job of analyzing the information that he has gleaned from the Zapruder film, he concludes that the weapon was a Winchester .220 Swift; it seems tenable to me , but I’d like to see others address his analysis, trying other possible weapons, giving their confidence limits for the different weaponry. As Chambers says himself, science is about repeatability. If there is no other suitable candidate, then the most likely candidate has been identified—but someone could still look into the records of the whereabouts of Winchester .220 Swifts in 1963. One of the important points about Chambers presentation is that, for those who are not trained in physics, Chambers explains the aspects of physics directly applicable to understanding the scientific base of his argument.

Why it Matters

 When Abraham Lincoln became the first president to be assassinated, a conspiracy was quickly exposed. The exposure of that conspiracy was important, because history matters. One could argue that we still don’t have all the details about the conspiracy that ended in Lincoln’s assassination. There is some disagreement as to whether Mary Surratt was a part of that conspiracy (she was the landlady at the boardinghouse where some of the conspiracy planning took place; she was hung shortly after the assassination), more was publicly known about the Lincoln conspiracy shortly after the assassination than is yet known about President Kennedy’s assassination. If “The truth shall set you free” then we have been held captive from the truth about President Kennedy’s assassination for forty-eight years and counting.

Notes:

1.       Chambers, E.P. (2010). Head Shot: The Science behind the JFK Assassination. Amherst, NY : Prometheus Books.

2.       Baars, B.J.  (1986).The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.              

3.       A second Ph.D. was received in clinical psychology.

4.       Just a brief selection of books that disprove the Warren Report would include: Harold Weissberg’s Whitewash-The Report on the Warren Report (1965). Frederick, MD: Author; Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment (1966). New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston;  Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact (1967). New York: Vintage; J. Gary Shaw, Cover-Up (1976). Austin, TX: Thomas: Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt (1985). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston; Robert Groden & Harrison Livingstone’s High Treason (1985). New York: Conservatory Press; Jim Marrs’ Crossfire (1989). New York: Carroll & Graff; Dick Russell’s The Man who knew too Much (1992). New York: Carroll & Graf; Walt Brown’s Treachery in Dallas (1995). New York: Carroll & Graf; Assassination Science (1998) Peru, IL: Catfeet Press , edited by Jim Fetzer; and Gerald MacKnight’s Breach of Trust  (1995). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. There are several other excellent refutations of the Warren Commission findings.

5.       Epstein, E.J. (1966). Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth.  New York: Bantam.

6.       Posner, G. (1993). Case Closed. New York: Random House.  

7.       Bugliosi, V. (2007). Reclaiming History. New York: Norton.

8.       Chambers, p. 8.

9.        Ibid, pp. 8-9.

10.   Bugliosi, p. 346.

11.   Weisberg, H. (1974). Whitewash IV: JFK Assassination Transcript. Frederick, MD: Author.

12.   Carlson, E.A.  (2004). Doubts about Mendel’s Integrity are Exaggerated. Mendel’s Legacy. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 48-49.

13.   Horne, D.P. (2009). Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Vols I-V. Lexington, KY: Author.

14.   Chambers, p. 94.

15.   Wrone, D.R. (2003). The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.

16.   Mantik, D.W. Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was edited. In Fetzer, J.H., Ed. (1998). Assassination Science. Peru, IL: Catfeet Press, pp. 263-344.

17.   Chambers, p.188.

18.   Weisberg, H. (1995). Never Again! New York: Carroll & Graf.

19.   Horne, D.P. (2009). Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board: The U.S. Governments Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK. Volumes I-V. Lexington, KY: Author.

20.   Horne, D.P. Interviews with Former NPIC Employees: The Zapruder Film in November 1963. In Fetzer, J.H., Ed. (2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza. Chicago: Catfeet Press, pp. 311-324.

21.   Horne, D.P. (2009). P. 1227.

22.   Images of an Assassination: A New Look at the Zapruder Film. (1967, 1995). Washington DC: MPI Media Group, The LMH Company.

23.   Chambers, p. 207.

           To be published in JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly

                      NIGHTMARE IN DALLAS: A REVIEW

                          John Delane Williams

   Nightmare in Dallas is the autobiographical story of the "Babushka Lady" written by Beverly Oliver, with Coke Buchanan [1].

As is typically true of firsthand accounts, no footnotes or references are encountered, even when their use would be required; for example, several JFK speeches are quoted at length without citation. The co-authorship of Coke Buchanan (who apparently had a large hand in the actual writing) is due at least in part to some serendipitous parallels in their lives- while Oliver was in Dealy Plaza, the younger Buchanan was at Love Field, viewing the arrival of JFK. Three years later, they were both working at the same restaurant in Dallas, she as a singer and he as a waiter, though they only became aware of this mutuality in 1992, when Buchanan was writing an article regarding the JFK assassination.

   Though they separate the book into six parts, the book can be seen as in two parts, the first part ending shortly after JFK's death, and the second part continuing on with Oliver's life. The first part intertwines the chronology of Oliver's and JFK's lives, with JFK's life  recorded to a considerable degree by lengthy quotes from his speeches, one of which goes on for seven pages. The reason for the inclusion of Kennedy's speeches was to help reestablish the memory of Kennedy's presidency, as in contradistinction to the more recent focusing on the negative aspects of Kennedy's personal life. [2]

   At the age of 14, Beverly Oliver, who lived in Garland (a Northeast suburb of Dallas) had appeared in a variety of Western venues as a singer. She went to the Colony Club in Dallas (a strip tease club which was a near neighbor of Jack Ruby's Carousel Club) and was involved in two amateur strip-tease contests on a dare. Jack Ruby introduced himself to her on the street after the second contest. At 14, Oliver also found herself pregnant. She gave birth to a baby girl on February 22, 1962. The child was given up for adoption.  In the summer of 1962, she got a job as a saloon singer at the family amusement park, Six Flags Over Texas. There, she met Larry Ronco, an Eastman Kodak representative who kept the park in film and plastered the park with pictures of the attractive Miss Oliver. When it was found out that she had performed at the Colony Club, she lost the Six Flags job. When the season ended, Ronco stayed in Dallas, continuing to see Oliver, eventually proposing to her, though his own marriage was not yet ended.

   Oliver then went to work for the Colony Club as a singer between strip acts. She also began to cultivate a relationship with Jack Ruby at the nearby Carousel Club. Before 1962 was ended, she had accompanied Ruby on one of his many trips. She apparently added "class" to Ruby; there apparently was no sexuality in their arrangement.

   1963 brought additional complexities to the life of young Miss Oliver. She accompanied Ruby to New Orleans (Oliver doesn't give a time, but Kantor [3] puts this in June, 1963) as Ruby was booking Jada (Janet Conforto) to dance in his club. Ronco returned from New York, not with divorce in hand, but rather with a not yet publicly available Yashika movie camera for Beverly. Ruby tried to talk Ronco out of the camera; the best he could get was that Ronco said he would get Ruby one "when he could get his hands on another one". Inferring from what was known later (Ronco had allegedly stolen a painting, p. 141), Ronco may have stolen the prototype camera (it was placed in general release in 1965 [4]) when he was employed by Eastman Kodak (this inference is the present writer's and not made by Oliver).

   Oliver had seen David Ferrie around the Carousel Club so much that she thought he might be an assistant manager. She also saw Roscoe White at the Carousel Club; his presence there was not unusual, since his wife Geneva was employed at the Carousel as a hostess; Oliver knew Roscoe White only as Geneva's husband. Oliver was introduced io Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby; Jada was also present (again, Oliver does not give a date, but it would appear that this would have occurred between November 8 and November 12) A few days later, Oswald was thrown out of the Carousel by Ruby for disturbing a comedy routine. At about the same time, Ronco claimed that Ferrie offered him $50,000 to kill Castro.

                   November 21-22, 1963  

   On the 21st, Oliver went to the Carousel Club; she intended to attend several parties with Ruby. She talked briefly with Jada.

Oliver was wearing the green and white polka-dot silk dress purchased for her by Ruby. Ruby took offense that, since Oliver was staying up all night and then, without changing, watching the JFK motorcade..."You mean you're going to wear the dress I bought you down to see that S.O.B.?" Around 9 P.M., Ruby and Oliver entered the Cabana Hotel. Oliver says that Larry Meyers was introduced to her (Meyers, a sporting goods salesman from Chicago has said that he met with Ruby at the Cabana on November 21; [5]  no mention was made of Oliver.) Another of the mysterious people with them was a person referred to as "Donny Lance", whom Oliver danced with and who presumably was a "business" associate of Ruby's. (pp. 108-109). Ruby, Meyers and Oliver then went to Campesi's (The Egyptian Lounge) for steaks around 10 P.M. (Curiously, Ruby had reportedly gone to dinner that evening with Ralph Paul, a business associate and co-owner of the Carousel Club. [6]) They (Ruby, Meyers and Oliver) returned to the Cabana Hotel where Oliver put on a dark wig and went to a party with an unnamed escort (a curious part of the Oliver-Buchanan writing is the dropping in of little mysteries) in Ft. Worth around 1 A.M. Perhaps, it was the second time they went to the Cabana Hotel that is described by Kantor, [7] which would explain why Oliver was not mentioned as being at the meeting. Ruby is also said to have gone to breakfast at 2:30 A.M. with Larry Crafard, a handy-man employee at the Carousel Club. One interpretation of this conflicting information is that an attempt to establish an alibi was being made for Ruby. [8]

   From Ft. Worth, Oliver took a taxi back to Dallas. She reached her car in The Colony Club parking lot around 11:10 A.M. on the 22nd. There, she changed her shoes, got the camera and proceeded to look for a good vantage point to film the presidential motorcade. She chose a place near the curb on Elm Street next to a father and son (Charles Brehm and his son; Brehm was among the first witnesses to be interviewed; see [9]). As the motorcade came into view, Oliver began to film. She likely had a good recording of the Texas School Book Depository as JFK turned onto Elm. She continued filming even after JFK was hit. She stood motionless as many others began running toward the picket fence, where Oliver assumed the shots had emanated. She recognized Roscoe White (sans his gun) and felt he recognized her. Oliver than drove home, took a sleeping pill and then went to sleep.

                    November 23-27

   When Oliver awakened and heard Oswald had been charged with shooting JFK from the Texas School Book Depository, it didn't make sense to her. JFK was shot from the front, not from behind. The person who was accused of the assassination had only recently been introduced to her. On Sunday, she found out about the murder of Oswald by Ruby by watching television. When Oliver was going back to the Colony Club to sing on Monday evening, she was met by two men, probably from the FBI (she later identified one of the men as Regis Kennedy, from the FBI in New Orleans). They took her undeveloped film, told her it would be returned in a few days and left. As she went into the club, two reporters asked her about Jack Ruby. She denied knowing him. Oliver remembers saying "If they could kill the president of the United States, they could kill a two-bit show girl like me and it wouldn't even make the back page of the newspaper" (p. 133). On Wednesday, Oliver went to the Carousel to find that Jada was gone, never again to be seen or heard of by Oliver.

                         Married to the Mob

   The relationship with Larry Ronco was short-lived; Ronco changed after the assassination; his pursuit of Oliver became so over-bearing that she obtained a restraining order. Later, she heard that Ronco committed suicide. Oliver met a gambler named George McGann. They were married on July 31, 1966. The reception was hosted by Tony and Janie Janero. Shortly afterward, McGann admitted "wasting" Tony, who had gotten too far behind in paying his bills. McGann and Oliver took over the Janero nightclub, the Sky King. At a get-together of McGann's friends (including, she determined later, Charles Harrelson), the JFK assassination came up. When Oliver tried to enter the discussion, McGann forceably removed Oliver from the room, threatening to kill her if she ever talked about it again. The gambling and occassional killing continued until McGann's own death occurred under suspicious circumstances on September 29, 1970, following the death  of their son George Massey (he was given an assumed name) who was less than three hours old. In the six chapters devoted to her life with George McGann, Oliver fails to discuss her meeting with her husband and Richard Nixon at the 1968 Republican National Convention, which is reported in interviews with Gary Shaw [10]. The only mention of the Nixon encounter in the present book is a sentence (p. 197) wherein she describes her meetings with Shaw.

   Beverly Oliver's existence from 14 to age 24 would seem to be the stuff of Hollywood scripts but not the stuff of a real life. At a very young age, she was confronted by twists of fate that must have tried her very soul. At 17, she had given a child up for adoption, performed in a strip tease show, sung in a variety of venues, but most recently in strip clubs, made the acquaintance of what would become the Who's Who of the JFK assassination, witnessed that assassination from a few feet away, and recorded that assassination on camera. That is heady stuff which few of us would have the emotional stability to withstand, particularly at 17.

                         Life Goes on

   Prior to George's death, Oliver became involved in fundamental Christian religion, adding her voice to the choir, and often attended revivals. At one such revival, she met Gary Shaw, and over time, gave him several interviews. She also met an evangelist, Charles Massagee; they were married a few weeks later. If her life had been on an emotional roller-coaster, at least she now had someone she could depend upon. If the life of the wife of an itinerant Baptist evangelist can be normal, then it would appear that some degree of normalcy had finally come to her. That is not to say her life was easy; she developed lupus, and a second son, Trey, died when he was not yet three months old. A second daughter, Pebbles, was born. Pebbles also appeared to be ill; a suspected familial genetic disorder, primary hyperoxaluria, may have been involved. Oliver donated a kidney to her daughter, despite having lupus. As of July, 1997, Pebbles has had a total of four transplants, including a liver transplant; the concern for her daughter in the present seems more removed from Dealey Plaza than a mere 34 years. [11] 

   Shaw had Oliver look at a variety of pictures to see whom she might identify from the past. She identified pictures of Guy Banister, and New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews, who had earlier represented Oswald; all had shown up at the Carousel Club. Also identified was Jack Lawrence, (who was "Donny Lance", whom she had seen on several occasions at the Carousel and danced with at one time; while she doesn't explicitly say that Lawrence was Lance in the book, she does so in [12]).  Jack Lawrence was reported to have been arrested on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; he was supposedly acting suspiciously directly after the assassination at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership, two blocks from Dealey Plaza. He had borrowed one of the firms' cars the evening of November 21 for a "heavy" date. The car Lawrence used was found behind the picket fence at the grassy knoll. [13] Lawrence denies all of these allegations. [14] Inkbol, who considers himself to be 'careful researcher' [15] and the author of [14] had earlier concluded that "...Lawrence was part of the conspiracy that killed President Kennedy..." [16, p. 12] (perhaps Inkbol should have been more 'careful'). Inkbol made a considerable turnaround after interviewing Lawrence. It is difficult to assess Lawrence's activities regarding Dallas, 1963. On the one hand, he appears to come under two of Van Wynsberghe's [17] rules of thumb as to the usefulness of a source's information regarding the assassination: "The source defies corroboration", and "The source is trailed by nagging details." To be sure, Van Wynsberghe also questions the reliability of Oliver, claiming she demands faith in her story and citing additionally two of Oliver's writings as indicating this expectation of faith/belief [18, 19]. Perhaps it is a matter of interpretation but I don't find Miss Oliver, either in her writing or in her interview with me, to demand that she be believed, but rather, that her story be seriously considered. It could also be pointed out that the inclusion or exclusion of Lawrence is not an essential component of her story. To be excluded is more important to Lawrence. Oliver says that "If It wasn't Lawrence she danced with on November 21, 1963, then it must have been his identical twin." [20] The possibility of Lawrence being 'set-up' by someone should not lightly be dismissed. However, it is clear that Lawrence's reported memory of events clashes with a variety of other reports about his activities. Rose renders the reasoned comment that the last word on Lawrence is not Lawrence's prerogative. [21]

   Oliver may still be silent on some areas. There continue to be people that she still ... "refused to acknowledge for fear of her life. There were people still alive who would kill her for breaking the code of silence about their activities." (p. 219) She also may be silent in personal areas that she sees as having no bearing on the assassination.

   Oliver went public, first on the British television production, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which was later shown on American cable television [22].  She also served as a consultant and had a brief part in the movie, JFK. [23] An interesting aside is that Jack Ruby taught Beverly Oliver how to shoot a gun. (p. 242). In light of this, it could call into question Tex Brown's assertion that he taught Ruby and Oswald how to fire guns just prior to the assassination. [24] It is of course possible that both Oliver and Brown are entirely truthful, but it would also bring up the question, "Why would Ruby go through the motions of learning how to fire a gun if he already knows how?" -unless going thru the motions served some secondary purpose.

   Because of her own unanswered questions regarding her part in the assassination, Oliver decided to undergo hypnosis. She was concerned that someone may have been programmed to shoot at JFK when they saw the woman in the green and white polka-dot dress; recall that Sirhan Sirhan had met with a woman in a polka-dot dress immediately before Sirhan fired at Robert Kennedy. [25] She was also wanting to know why she had a very uneasy feeling about her last visit to Larry Ronco's apartment, when she saw something and then did not go in- but could not recall what she saw. The chapter on Oliver's hypnosis demonstrates a positive approach (that is, in a thoughtful therapeutic environment) to hypnosis, though reader's who are skeptical of hypnosis might be far more willing to agree with followers [26] of Elizabeth Loftus [27] regarding the construction of "false memory syndrome". Under hypnosis, Oliver reconstructed events at Ronco's apartment. In the reconstruction, a man named Roberto Guzman, whom she had seen together with Ruby and Ferrie, was showing Ronco a gun. It was this episode that presumably caused her to break off relations with Ronco.

                Larry Howard and Some Unusual Stories      

   Oliver met Larry Howard, the co-director of the JFK Center in Dallas, who has been told some unusual stories about the assassination, and has undoubtedly developed a keen sense of skepticism. One such story was in regard to Jack Ruby. In 1980, a woman, not identified by Oliver, living in Atlanta, received a press clipping about Johnny Roselli with a typed note saying "Gene Dunbar" Jack Ruby, real name Jacob Rubenstein (and then signed in a secret code known to the woman's husband). The woman and her husband knew the killer of Oswald as Gene Dunbar. Dunbar and her husband worked undercover as information couriers for President Roosevelt from March 1933 to September 1945. (Kantor not only makes no mention of this in regard to Ruby, but also Ruby was drafted into the Army Air Force from mid 1943 to February 1946, serving at southern U.S. bases (p. 202)). The Atlanta couple made contact with the person who sent the clipping, Thomas Kennedy, of Chicago, who claimed to be Ruby. "Ruby" claimed that another man who was dying of cancer at the same time he was in the Dallas hospital switched identities after the man was dead (recall that Ruby died of cancer less than a month after the diagnosis [28, p. 429-433]). "Ruby" was then flown to Mexico City by Ferrie where alterations were made surgically of his face. The new "Ruby" had blue eyes, not dark as were Ruby's. Also, there seemed to be credible witnesses to Ruby's death. Still, Kennedy had a remarkable knowledge of Ruby that was unlikely to have been known by someone else. Also, when Oliver asked Kennedy what was the only gift that he had wrapped for her, Kennedy wrote, "a green and white polka-dot dress."        

       Was Beverly Oliver Too Thin to be the Babushka Lady?

   A nagging question is the issue of weight. The "Babushka Lady" is termed "stocky" by Posner [29, p. 260]. Others have questioned whether the "Babushka Lady" could possibly be the youthful Miss Oliver (including recently Whitmey [30]). Pictures of the "Babushka Lady" in Oliver's book (slipcase, 180, 181, 182) do indeed appear to be someone heavier than pictures of Beverly shown on page 177 (taken in 1963, probably a publicity photo) page 178 (taken at Six Flags, supposedly in 1963, but probably in 1962) and at her wedding in 1966. (p.177) Two other pictures from 1963 (p. 178, with Larry Ronco and one taken in October by Ruby, p. 177) would indicate a person whose weight could fluctuate rather rapidly. Not including the Six Flags picture (probably from 1962), the three 1963 pictures show Oliver carrying more weight than earlier or later. Oliver says that she obtained a picture of the "Babushka Lady" and had blow-ups done of the feet; Oliver has a particular deformation involving the placement and small size of her little toe. [31] Perhaps Miss Oliver can be persuaded to share these pictures with the research community. Pictures of the stocky Babushka Lady, acknowledged by Oliver to be her are undoubtedly what she says they are. This is not to say that persons in the research community shouldn't seek additional confirmation (or refutation) on this matter.

               Why Did Oliver Write This Book?

   Here, Oliver tells us why..."I have decided to write a book about my experiences so that people who are interested will have a testimony with as much detail as possible, even if it's significance seems trite. I want to record my story, get it behind me; then get on with my life." (p.279). It would seem redundant to

try to go beyond her statement.

Thanks to Beverly Oliver Massagee and Gary Shaw.

Notes

1. Oliver, B. with Buchanan, C. (1994). Nightmare in Dallas. Lancaster, PA: Starburst Publishers.

2. Telephone interview with Beverly Oliver Massagee, July 22, 1997.

3. Kantor, S. (1978). The Ruby Cover-up. New York: Kensington Pub.

4. Oliver, B. (1994). Letter to the Editor. The Fourth Decade, 1,2,10-11.

5. Kantor (1978).

6. Rose, J. D. (1987). You don't know me, but you will: The World of Jack Ruby. The Third Decade,4,1,1-28.

7. Kantor, The Ruby cover-up.

8. Moyer, M. A. & Gallagher, R.F. (1997). Where was Jack Ruby on November 21 and November 22? Fourth Decade, 4,2,7-14.

9. JFK Assassination: As it Happened (NBC, November 22, 1963, rebroadcast, A&E, November 22, 1988).

10. Shaw, G. with Harris, L. (1976). Cover-up. Cleburne, Tx: the authors.

11. Interview with Beverly Oliver Massagee,  July 22, 1997.

12. Oliver, B. (1993). Beverly Oliver Responds: An Open Letter to the Research Community. The Third Decade. 9,5,9-13,

13. Marrs, J. (1989). Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy.

New York: Carroll & Graf.

14.Inkbol, S. (1992). Jack Lawrence Responds. The Third Decade,8,6,1-17.

15. Inkbol, S. (1997). Letter to the Editor. The Fourth Decade, 4,5,30-31.

16. Inkbol, S. (1991). Jack Lawrence, Assassin or Fall Guy? The Third Decade,  7,5,1-17.

17. Van Wynsberghe, S. (1997). Chauncy Holt and Problematic Sources. The Fourth Decade. 4,3,19-23.

18. Oliver, B. (1993). Beverly Oliver Responds: An Open Letter to the Research Community. The Third Decade, 9,5,9-13.

19. Oliver, B. (1994). Letter to the Editor. The Fourth Decade, 1,2,10-11.

20. Interview with Beverly Oliver Massagee,  July 22, 1997.

21. Rose, J. D. (1992). Editor's Note. Third Decade,8,6,17.

22. The Men Who killed Kennedy. (1988, October, November). A&E Cable Television.

23. JFK. (1991). (motion picture, produced by Oliver Stone).

24. Brown, R. with Lassiter, D. (1996). Broken Silence: The Truth about Lee Harvey Oswald, LBJ, and the Assassination of JFK. New York: Pinnacle Press.

25. Turner,W. & Christian, J. (1993). The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup. New York: Thunder Mouth Press.

26. Pendergrast, M. (1995). Victims of Memory: Incest Accusations and Shattered lives. Hinesburg, VT: Upper Access, Inc.

27. Loftus, E. & Ketcham, K. (1994). The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and the Allegations of Sexual Abuse. New York: St. Martin's Press.

28. Marrs, Crossfire.

29. Posner G. (1993). Case Closed. New York: Random House.

30. Whitmey, P. R. (1997). Letter to the Editor. The Fourth Decade, 4,2,29-30.

31. Interview with Beverly Oliver Massagee, July 22, 1997.

From The Fourth Decade: A Journal of Research on the John F. Kennedy Assassination. (1997). 4, 6, 21-26.