WHY THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC
Presented in Dallas on Friday, 11/20/98 by
Question from panel Chairperson
DR. THOMPSON: Before turning to the Zapruder film in particular, I want to situate it under a more general horizon.
If altered, the Zapruder film would be an example of a more general phenomenon: the alteration of physical evidence by the authorities in a criminal case. Yes, it does happen. Not often. In fact, it's almost unique. In over twenty years of experience as a criminal investigator, I've seen it happen only once or twice. But it does happen. In fact, right now I have a death-penalty case where I think it happened. Let me tell you about it.
[Here follows a brief description of the possible substitution of a cartridge case by the investigating officer in a murder case.]
Whether or not a substitution was made in this case is not the point. What is the point is the considerations that would make such a substitution plausible, that would make someone even try it: Note first that the crime scene cartridge case was in the custody of the person carrying out the substitution. Note second that, since the cartridge case was linked to no other evidence in the case, once the substitution was made there was no way for it to be discovered. Note third that the person who substituted the cartridge case knew exactly what he had to prove by the substitution.
Now let's try on another hypothetical example for size. Let's say that a particular letter is found at a crime scene. Let's say that that letter was the output of a computer at a remote location. Let's also say that the investigating officer had some incentive to change the wording in the letter. If you were that investigating officer, what questions would you ask yourself? Wouldn't you first ask whether there were other copies of the letter? Had the writer kept a copy in a safe place or given it to someone else? Was the text of the letter kept on the computer? Even if it had been deleted from the hard drive of the computer, was there a backup somewhere? The alteration of evidence in a criminal case is a desperate act. Would you take that chance if you knew that irrefutable evidence of the alteration might turn up somewhere else? And how could you ever be sure?
Now let's take a photograph of a crime. First, you'd have to know exactly how you wanted to alter it. Secondly, you'd have to be sure no other copies - no negative hidden away, no second copy residing in someone else's possession - existed. Thirdly, you'd have to be sure that no other photographs taken by anyone else later would surface to expose the alteration.
With these considerations in mind, consider whether you would undertake to alter the Zapruder film. First, you'd have to know exactly what you wanted to show in your alteration. Second, since the film in question was a movie, you might very well have to alter not just one frame, not just one sequence of frames, but many. Thirdly, what about the other films? At least thirty-eight people were taking pictures that day in Dealey Plaza. At the very least, the Muchmore and Nix films also would have to be altered. The Muchmore film was purchased by UPI on Monday, November 25th, and shown the following day on WNEW-TV in New York City. On Friday, November 29th, the Nix film was also purchased by UPI and shown the next week in theater newsreels.
But the critical problem for anyone thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films. It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any one of these unknown films could expose your alteration.
If one sat down for a long, long time it would be difficult to come up with a situation where alteration was more unlikely than in a film of the assassination of President Kennedy - a murder occurring at noon in a public square in front of hundreds of witnesses, an unknown number of whom were taking photographs of it.
Unlikely? Yes. Foolhardy? Yes. Impossible? No.
What makes it impossible is the actual provenance of the film itself. Recall above the example which showed the foolhardiness of faking a letter if you were not in possession of all the copies. This situation is repeated with respect to the Zapruder film. For a minute, come along with me as we plot Zapruder and his film's movements over that crucial weekend thirty-five years ago...
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
3:15 pm (est.)
4:00 pm (est.)
4:30 pm (est.)
At some time this weekend, a copy of the film is sent to New York where it is viewed by C.D. Jackson, publisher of LIFE. Jackson decides to acquire all rights to the film and so instructs Stolley.
Zapruder may have screened the film for Forrest Sorrels and other law enforcement agents.
During these negotiations, Dan Rather is shown the film. He neglects to make an immediate bid but elects to check with New York first. During a radio broadcast with Richard C. Hottelet and Hughes Rudd, Rather describes the film which he has "just returned from seeing." Later that day, Rather describes his viewing of the film on the CBS Evening News. Rather could only have seen this film at this time if Zapruder had retained one copy and provided Stolley with only the original the previous Saturday.
What emerges from this chronology is a single important fact: At no time during this hectic weekend did the original of the film ever leave the custody and control of Abraham Zapruder and LIFE magazine. Two first-generation copies were provided to Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service in the late afternoon of November 22nd . One of these copies was shipped to Washington that night. The other was turned over to the FBI and sent by commercial air to Washington the next day. But the original stayed with Zapruder until the morning of November 23rd when Dick Stolley walked out of Zapruder's office with it under his arm. That original remained under LIFE's custody and control until it was given back to Zapruder's family in the 1970s.
But how do we know that LIFE did not conspire in the alteration of the film? As it is impossible to prove any negative, so it is impossible to prove this negative. But there is no shred of evidence that it happened. On Monday, November 25th, many millions of LIFE magazine copies went into the mails to subscribers with black and white frames from the film, and, about the same time, copies of the film began appearing in editors' offices. Had the conspiratorial alteration of the film by LIFE and the government already taken place? If not, it would have been too late. With unknown copies floating around, the toothpaste could no longer have been put back in the tube.
Recently, another thread in the fabric has become visible. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, 1963, Zapruder sold just print rights to LIFE for $50,000. Other media were clamoring at Zapruder's heels, and two days later he sold additional rights to LIFE for $100,000 more. Are we to believe that Zapruder - always a shrewd businessman - had let Stolley walk out of his office with both the original and the last first- generation copy? How would Zapruder be able to negotiate with the media for the remaining rights to his film?
Had he given up his last copy of the film, then Dan Rather could not have viewed the film in the offices of Zapruder's lawyer on the morning of November 25th. Had he given up the last copy of his film, he could not have shown the film numerous times to Forrest Sorrels and others over that weekend.
Recently, a new fact has come to light via the inquiries of the AARB. Their report disclosed that "...the Zapruder family's company possessed a third, first-generation copy of the Zapruder film." If Zapruder retained a first-generation copy of the film, then there was no time ever when the toothpaste could have been put back in the tube. You say that Zapruder and LIFE could both have cooperated with the government in the alteration of the film? You can say this if you will. You can believe it, I suppose... But I can't. I think it's silly.
At this conference two years ago, Professor James Fetzer declared that a "historical turning point" had been reached: The alteration of the Zapruder film had been proven! When my colleague here, Hal Verb, had the temerity to disagree, the Professor told him he was "irrational." When earlier this year, I had the temerity to disagree, I was told by the Professor that "...you have thereby discredited yourself as a commentator on these matters."
Well, Professor Fetzer is a commentator here today and you will be able to judge his commentary. But since he is here, I want to close by taking up two of his contentions. First, that the original of the Zapruder film was sent to the National Photographic Interpretation Center on the evening of November 22nd. Second, that famed eyewitness identification expert Elizabeth Loftus has produced findings showing that salient details of events are remembered with 98% accuracy and completeness.
In a recent email to me, Professor Fetzer wrote:
The study referred to is by Mike Pincher and Roy L. Schaeffer. These writers manufacture out of whole cloth a flight of "at least the original and one copy" from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base on the night of the 22nd and a return flight of the altered film to Dallas in the early morning hours of November 23rd. They do this without a single fact to support their fancy. They even cite the Max Phillips note (quoted above), but never tell the reader that Phillips also pointed out that "Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the 'master' [read 'original'] film."
They - and apparently Professor Fetzer - have simply misinterpreted the so-called "CIA 450 Documents" discovered by Paul Hoch in the early 1980s. These documents recount the preparation of four photo briefing boards for government officials based upon NPIC's analysis of the film. The question at issue is the timing of the shots. The selection of frames for the briefing boards makes clear that NPIC is looking at the same film we see today.
Telltale information is found on page six of the documents which refer to the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE. Hence, the examination was carried out not on November 22nd - but sometime in December 1963. The copy of the film analyzed was the Secret Service copy, whose agents stayed with the film while the briefing boards were prepared. AARB located and interviewed two former employees of NPIC who stated that internegatives were made of only single frames to be mounted on briefing boards and that they never "reproduced the film as a motion picture."
Professor Fetzer makes his second claim in his own recognizable style. He wrote to me:
There are so many errors in these few lines that it is difficult to know where to begin.
First of all, these are not Elizabeth Loftus' findings, but the account of an experiment published in the Harvard Law Review by Marshall, et al. entitled, "Effects of Kind of Question and Atmosphere of Interrogation on Accuracy and Completeness of Testimony." The focus of the study is not "salience" or "accuracy" or "completeness" - but, rather, methods of interrogation. Elizabeth Loftus cited the study in her book - but these are not "her findings."
Had Professor Fetzer taken the trouble to look at the article he cites, he would have recognized that the "salient items" were not picked out by the people tested in the experiment, but by staff members and high school students. Hence, he misspeaks in saying, "...when a group of subjects considered what they were observing to be salient or significant, they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations."
It is Professor Fetzer's practice to ascribe nonsensical views to people and then criticize them for holding them. Likewise here. The Professor ascribes to me the silly idea that "...a view must be true because it is widespread." Then he exposes me as having committed "the fallacy of popular sentiments" for holding such a silly idea. This isn't argument. It's just silliness!
Then there is Professor Fetzer's claim that I have "misrepresented" Elizabeth Loftus' findings with respect to the Kennedy assassination. It is not only I who "accepts the widely-held belief that eyewitness testimony is unreliable," it is also Elizabeth Loftus. In fact, it is precisely her work which brought about this "widely-held belief." The cover of Eyewitness Testimony states that the book "...makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness."
This is the book's single, unifying theme. Eyewitness testimony is both unreliable at its inception and subject to corruption by later acquired information and questioning.
Since I'd worked with Elizabeth Loftus on two cases (most recently the Oklahoma City bombing case), I asked her what she thought of the use the Harvard Law article had been put to by David Mantik and Professor Fetzer. She wrote back:
So much for my alleged misinterpretation of her views.
Next is Professor Fetzer's quotation of a statistical error by David Mantik. Here, as in so many other things, he wraps himself in David Mantik's skirts. But David Mantik is mistaken when he writes:
They both got it wrong. As Art Snyder will be able to explain to you, they confused a Type I Probability (false negative) with a Type II Probability (false positive). I am sure Professor Fetzer will go on for hours in argument with Art Snyder about this. As for me, I know zip about probability theory and find the important point to be Elizabeth Loftus' "...it's wrong to say anything like 98% of salient details are accurately remembered."
You may wonder why I've taken the time to attack Professor Fetzer here. It is because he expresses a trend in assassination research which I find odious.
His emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."
They have to do with the evidence you put forward for your view and the reasonableness of the interpretations you hang on that evidence. That's what Sylvia Meagher and I believed when we started working together in the 60s. It was a long time ago in virtually another country. It was 1965... 66... 67, and here and there people were beginning to distrust what they'd been told.
There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland, Ray Marcus and David Lifton in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a few things in common -- inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any money out of this. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community... the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.
We shared information on a transcontinental basis. I still remember the excitement with which Vince Salandria and I received our copy of the Sibert-O'Neill Report from Paul Hoch! None of us gave a damn for credentials because - as we put it - "There are no Ph.Ds in assassination research."
Back then - with the might and majesty of the federal government aligned with the news media in defense of the Warren Report - performing assassination research was somewhat like doing research on UFOs. It was not respectable. And so we formed our own community and helped with each others' research and critiqued each others' drafts. It's that community which still stands in my mind's eye as the ideal - and it's that community to which I owe my loyalty.
That community lies at the farthest remove from "Assassination Science" and its promoter.
Josiah Thompson, 11/98
|HOME | WEB & DESIGN SERVICES | CONNECT | SEARCH|
© JFK Lancer // Website and graphics by Julianne Rhodes