The Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Norton Report

Part Two-Paul Groody

By W. Tracy Parnell © 2003

Paul Groody

In January 1982 at halftime of a Texas Christian University basketball game [1], long-time JFK assassination researcher Jack White was approached by an unassuming older man with a receding hairline whom he did not immediately recognize. “Remember me, Jack?” the man asked in response to White’s quizzical gaze. “I am Paul Groody and I embalmed Lee Harvey Oswald.” [2] With this innocuous meeting begins the story of one of the more colorful characters in the history of the JFK assassination saga.

Much of what researchers know about the 1981 exhumation and identification of Lee Harvey Oswald apparently comes from a brief segment in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy (hereafter TMWKK) that originally aired on the Arts and Entertainment network (A&E) and is rebroadcast annually by the History Channel. The blurb features mortician Groody, a former employee of the Miller Funeral Home where Oswald’s body was prepared for burial in 1963 and who was also present at the exhumation and forensic identification. Alan Baumgardner assisted Groody both in ’63 and at the time of the exhumation.

In 1988, Groody appeared in TMWKK and his story became widely known. It was also featured in Jim Marrs’ 1989 book Crossfire and was repeated by conspiracy theorists in numerous articles and other publications. The story and its implications were largely accepted as fact and remained unchallenged until the 1992 Internet publication of an article by M. Duke Lane . [3] The article titled “Grave Doubts” used the Norton Report and good common sense to refute Groody’s allegations. However, many conspiracy theorists remained unconvinced and annual airings of TMWKK exposed new viewers to the story. In 2001, this writer published “An Analysis of the Paul Groody Segment From The Men Who Killed Kennedy” at The Lee Harvey Oswald Research Page. The article used several sources in an attempt to refute Groody’s allegations. The article you are reading will use that article and additional sources to update the case that Paul Groody is simply mistaken about his remembrances. [4]

History of the Groody Allegations

In an interview with this writer, Jack White recalled his first meeting with Groody, “I had previously known Paul Groody because he had asked our ad agency to submit an ad proposal for his business a year or so previous to the exhumation, which if I remember was 1981.” White continued, “… Groody spotted me in the stands, and came over and told me the same basic story which is well-known.” [5]

Groody’s story concerned what he saw during the exhumation and later in the examination room at Baylor Medical Center both prior to and after the forensic exam. As the mortician of record, it was his job to identify the body as the one that he had prepared in 1963 and after the examination to place the body in a new casket for transport back to the gravesite. Groody was very confident that the body would be in good shape for the identification. [6] One researcher who has probably studied the exhumation events more closely than anyone is Gary Mack, who is now the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas . Mack remembered in a 2000 interview, “Groody gave several interviews during the exhumation attempts over the years, claiming he “overembalmed” Oswald on the chance someone may need to dig him up someday. [7] This jibes with White’s memory as well, “He embalmed the body with several times the usual amount of formaldehyde so that the body would be well-preserved for all time,” he recalled.

The first sign of trouble from Groody’s perspective came when the burial vault of Oswald was brought to the surface. Groody made the following observation in his now famous TMWKK segment, “At the time of the '63 burial time, I put Lee Harvey Oswald in a steel reinforced concrete vault. That vault was hermetically sealed. The vault is guaranteed not to break, crack, or go to pieces-it's heavy concrete with steel in it with an asphalt lining. And when I opened the grave in '81 and found that that vault had been broken and the bottom of the vault was the part that was broken-the top was still intact-I noticed at that time that the casket had been disturbed-I questioned in my own mind what had been going on.” [8]

After the vault was opened, Groody and other graveside observers also noticed damage to the casket. The top of the casket just above and behind the head was damaged and a section approximately 18 by 3-4 inches was missing. The opening was large enough so the observers could actually see the remains of the alleged assassin. [9] Following the transfer of the remains to Baylor, Groody identified the body before the exam and he and Baumgardner took care of the remains afterward. Both men had a chance to get a brief but close-up look at the body during their activities. Groody called Marina Oswald sometime later and told her that everything had been above board at the exhumation in his view. [10] “When I opened that casket the first time”, he recalled several years later, “I sent my wife Virginia to Marina to tell her, "yes, there is a body in that grave" because that was her concern.” [11]

But several days later the men had a change of heart. Gary Mack recalls, “Baumgardner and Groody were having lunch or something when he suddenly remembered the craniotomy and asked Groody if it should have been noticeable at the exhumation. That was the first time either man thought of it.” As Groody explains, “When an autopsy is done and the skull is cut in order to remove the cap in order to remove the brain, there is a distinctive line of where all the fissures and all of the skull has been parted. Now, it's going to cause a bit of a mark no matter what you try and do-it's going to show. And knowing that I handled the body originally and there was an autopsy on that head and now to see that there was no autopsy on the head made it, in my mind, pretty clear that something had transpired that had caused this.” [12]

Groody provided an explanation for what he had seen, “I feel as though someone had gone to the cemetery...off hours, had taken the head of really of Lee Harvey Oswald that now was dead-how he got that way I don't know but at least it was the head-and had brought the vault to the surface as best they could being a heavy item as it is-a tripod lifting that body lifting the body and the vault out of the grave. In the process, the bottom of the vault fell, breaking the vault-causing the casket to deteriorate to a degree. Then of course, removed the head of the one that was there that had been autopsied and put this head in its place so that we would find the teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald-that's my theory-this is what I think happened. Whoever caused that is the same faction that caused the assassination in the first place. In my mind, a cover-up had taken place.” [13]

After hearing the story at the basketball game, White approached Mack who contacted Groody. He declined to go public and urged Mack to find someone to investigate the matter. Mack, then employed at Dallas NBC affiliate KXAS-TV, asked the station to look into the matter. Mack, Groody and Baumgardner met with that station’s top investigative reporter and the men repeated their concerns. Mack explains, "They freely admitted their recollection may have been in error and they did not want any publicity - they only wanted to let someone know about their uncertainty after remembering the craniotomy. Groody explained that, in his experience with exhumations, the skull cap almost always falls off when so many years have elapsed." However, KXAS was unable to investigate the story further and, when the Norton Report was published, lost interest. [14] In February 1982, Mack contacted Dr. Linda Norton who had headed the team of physicians at the exam. Norton told Mack (through an assistant) that the team’s report would be forthcoming and no specifics would be released before that time, hopefully two to three months. [15]

By the summer of ’82, the report had still not been released and all involved were still concerned by the mystery. Mack and White turned to journalist and author Jim Marrs [16] who later wrote the book Crossfire. Marrs contacted Dr. Norton directly by phone and quizzed her about the craniotomy. Norton stated that it was indeed present and noted for the record. The men were still puzzled by her answer since Groody and Baumgardner could not recall any cranial incision. [17] Mack wanted to go directly to Marina Oswald [18] in an attempt to clear up the matter. However, Marina had made it clear to the media that she considered the exhumation issue closed so Mack instead approached her friend, John Cullins, a police officer and security guard. Cullins had been present at the exhumation and exam and was therefore in a unique position to comment on Groody’s assertions. Initially skeptical, Cullins only became involved after the story was publicized on local radio station WFAA. [19]

Cullins now told Mack that he could gain access to a videotape of the examination made with Marina ’s permission by Hampton Hall, son of a local politician. [20] Cullins viewed the tape along with his personal physician in December of 1982. Both men agreed that no craniotomy cut could be seen on the video and it was either absent or too small to be seen. Cullins also reported that the skull was held upside down at one point and dislodged from a mount on a metal tray as well. Since no glue had been used on the skullcap at the time Groody prepared it, this seemed to be more proof of no craniotomy and a possible skull switch. [21] In January 1984, the Norton Report was finally released after a delay of 27 months. Unfortunately, the report seemed to raise more questions than it answered, at least in the minds of those who followed the Groody story. Yes, the team had seen the craniotomy cut but no photos were provided of it. [22] So the mystery remained. Could Groody and his assistant be mistaken? Or were Dr. Norton and her team part of a cover-up to hide some terrible truth about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Analysis of the Groody Allegations

It is worthwhile before beginning to discuss what Groody’s role was on the day of the exhumation. Jack White’s description of his duties at the gravesite seems to be the one most repeated. White stated, “According to state regulations, the original mortician

is in charge of exhumation if possible. Groody was in charge of opening the grave. Groody was in charge of removing the casket from the ground. Groody traveled to the hospital with the casket. Groody was in charge of opening the casket/removing corpse.”

Although it is clear White’s last sentence is an overstatement (since no one removed the corpse at the examination), Gary Mack’s excellent series of articles on the exhumation provides the following confirmation, “Both (Groody and Baumgardner) were present for the exhumation and part of the later examination because exhumations must be legally handled by an officer of the state.” [23]

Once the body arrived at Baylor, it seems clear that Groody’s role became twofold:

1. To identify the remains as those that he worked with in 1963.

2. To return to the examination room at the conclusion of the exam and place the body in a new casket for transport and reburial at Rose Hill where he again would oversee the process.

Groody was not a part of the examination team or the examination process in any way other than to simply identify the body. The record is clear that he left the examination room shortly after identifying the body. Now, let’s see how Groody’s TMWKK statements compare with the record.

Note: In this section for the purpose of clarity, all quotes appear in Blue.

Paul Groody:

“At the time of the '63 burial time, I put Lee Harvey Oswald in a steel reinforced concrete vault. That vault was hermetically sealed. The vault is guaranteed not to break, crack, or go to pieces-it's heavy concrete with steel in it with an asphalt lining. And when I opened the grave in '81 and found that that vault had been broken and the bottom of the vault was the part that was broken-the top was still intact-I noticed at that time that the casket had been disturbed-I questioned in my own mind what had been going on.”

Similarly, researcher Greg Burnham claimed in a recent TV documentary:

“There’s no earthquakes of course, in Texas that would have caused a crack in this 2700 pound steel-reinforced concrete vault yet it had been compromised.” [24]

Greg Burnham

But Gary Mack disagrees with Burnham:

“According to the numerous records and studies, Texas certainly does have earthquakes, but not very many. But the soil in many spots in north Texas contains a lot of clay, which expands and contracts depending on soil moisture. Homeowners here know to water the ground around their home to prevent damaging foundation cracks. Roads over heavy clay soil often buckle during expansion or contraction and the same problem affects cemeteries. The vault damage could very easily have been caused by natural geology.” [25]

Indeed, the idea of a burial vault being any sort of safe haven for the deceased seems to be coming under fire. Darryl J. Roberts is a 30-year veteran of the “death care industry” who has written a whistle-blowing book that features allegations of serious price gouging by funeral homes. [26] Roberts’ book, Profits of Death, exposes many myths about death and dying. On page 50-51 Roberts writes:

“No vault is impervious to eventual disintegration, and there is very little chance of placing anything underground and having it remain waterproof. I have personally witnessed as many as forty disinterments from vaults (even those made by the leading manufacturers) that were guaranteed waterproof from which water had to be drained before they could be moved. Often, they were full of water.”

Roberts continues:

“It’s frequently necessary, when disinterring one of these vaults, to knock drainage holes in the bottom before it can be moved. Only then can the vault-still with the hole in the bottom-and casket be reinterred in another location.”

So it would seem that another long standing myth-that Oswald’s broken vault suggests tampering-is laid to rest (so to speak). [27]

Paul Groody:

“I noticed at that time that the casket had been disturbed-I questioned in my own mind what had been going on.”

By saying that the “casket had been disturbed”, Groody implies that he saw something sinister. The only thing unusual about the coffin (other than the rotting that had taken place because of water damage) was a missing piece near the head area about 18 inches long and 3 or four inches wide. Part 2 of the Coverups! series offers an explanation:

“Perhaps it had been somehow damaged when the coffin and vault were lowered into the grave and someone kept it as a souvenir.”

Of course, another explanation is that the piece became dislodged from the weakened casket and simply dropped into the vault sometime during the exhumation process.

Paul Groody:

“And then we did go to Baylor-there was an examination by a medical person who was this forensic pathologist. And she determined that yes, these were the teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald but it took two years for her to make that determination before the report was actually done.”

The mysterious “delay” between the exhumation and the release of the determination that the teeth matched Oswald is one of the more enduring criticisms leveled by theorists. The matching of the teeth of the corpse and Oswald in fact occurred that very day. At a press conference held at about 3:00 p.m. CT on October 4, 1981, Linda Norton stated:

“The findings of the team are as follows:

We independently and as a team have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill Cemetery is in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.” [28]

So the determination that this was the body of Oswald was made immediately the day of the exhumation. What did take 27 months to complete was the full report on the examination. That was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in January 1984. Still, some critics say that is an abnormally long time and seem suspicious about the “delay”. Dr Vincent Di Maio, who was one of the four members of the Norton team, told the author:

“The critics are unfamiliar with medical publications. It usually takes a year or two from submission to publication. It often takes months to write the article such that everyone is in agreement with the manuscript.” [29]

However, consider the possibility that viewers of TMWKK thought that it really had taken two years for Norton to make any comment whatsoever. Where would they get an idea like that? Maybe from the program itself. Right after Groody says: it took two years for her to make that determination before the report was actually done, the program makes a quick cut to Norton’s statement. To the uninitiated, this could make it appear that Norton was giving her press conference at the time the report was released in 1984 rather than on the day of the exam in 1981. Perhaps TMWKK is as much to blame for the “mysterious delay” issue as anyone. [30]

Paul Groody:

“Of course, I was the one that had to handle the body in the morgue at Baylor. And as we removed the body from the casket...”

But Groody did not handle the body or remove it from the casket-no one did. The Norton Report states:

“Because of the friable condition of the body it was elected to remove the skull only from the casket with minimal disarticulation of the remains in accordance with the desires of next of kin. The above examination was performed with the remains within the casket and without removal.”

Dr. Di Maio agreed, saying, “No, just the head”, when asked if the body was removed.

Groody seems to realize in mid-sentence that he has overstated his involvement and he does a little backpedaling by adding the qualifying phrase:

“…or at least worked with the body, ...”

Groody continues:

“... I could recognize that this clothing was the clothing that I had put on that body. And yet when I saw the head of this body and it was removed from the casket and removed from the body in order that they might x-ray it and take pictures, I could see that there was no autopsy on that head.”

Again there are problems. Groody implies that he saw the head removed from the body. Indeed according to Jack White, Groody said that the head was not attached to the body at all. White said, “Groody and Baumgardner observed the start of the Norton group's activities, during which time he noted that the skull was ALREADY separated from the spine.” (Emphasis in original) [31]

But the head was indeed attached when the coffin was opened. From the Norton Report:

“The head was removed from the remainder of the body by incision of the mummified tissue maintaining the skull, cervical and thoracic vertebral column in normal continuity. The incision was made at the approximate second cervical vertebral interspace.”

From Mack’s Closeups! series based on the observations of John Cullins:

“Dr. Linda Norton decided that comparison X-rays could not be taken unless the skull was removed. In clear view of the closeup camera, nine snips to the rotted muscle was all that was needed.”

Finally, Dr. Di Maio confirmed, “... it was attached as it had to be cut free.”

Another quote from Coverups! (This time Part 2) reports on the duration of Groody’s stay in the examination area:

“Although Groody was close to the body for only a few seconds, and in the room for less than a minute, he had enough time to notice that the skull was completely intact.”

A quote from the Norton Report confirms Groody’s brief stay:

“The mortician who closed Mr. Oswald’s casket remained in the room until the casket was reopened.”

Back to Groody’s TMWKK observations and a new issue:

Paul Groody:

“And knowing that I handled the body originally and there was an autopsy on that head and now to see that there was no autopsy on the head made it, in my mind, pretty clear that something had transpired that had caused this.”

The Norton Report states:

“A previous autopsy saw cut in the usual fashion was present on the calvarium with an anterior inverted V-notch in the right frontal region. The calvarium was maintained in continuity with the remainder of the skull by virtue of decomposed mummified tissue.”

The report is clear there was a craniotomy on the skull. This passage also offers an explanation for the skull remaining intact in spite of alleged rough handling by the forensic team-mummified tissue held it on. Photos of the skull from the examination show what seems to be a great deal of tissue remaining on the skull just as the report describes.

Indeed, Dr. Di Maio confirmed, “... tissue in this instance was acting like a glue.” The photos also show a horizontal line just above the mastoid process that Dr. Di Maio confirmed is the craniotomy incision. [32]

So why did Groody and Baumgardner say there was no craniotomy incision on the body? It is important to remember that neither Groody nor Baumgardner reported anything unusual on the day of the examination. In fact according to Coverups!, Groody called Marina and told her everything was fine and all questions were answered. It was only several days later when the two men were discussing the event that they became suspicious. A passage from Coverups! (Part 2) relates details of that discussion:

“They knew that the line of the craniotomy cut should have been visible to everyone who saw the skull. And they knew that the skullcap should have fallen off in the coffin before anyone touched it. Not only was the skull intact at Baylor, almost all of the scalp had rotted away, leaving no visible mark.”

This passage is revealing. It seems that their belief there was no craniotomy is based more on what they didn't see (the skull cap laying in the coffin) rather than what they actually saw. After all, if they saw no incision, why not say so the same day? It was only later when thinking about the “intact” skull that the men “remembered” there was no craniotomy. Groody and Baumgardner are often quoted as saying that the skull was “intact”. Two such separate quotes from the Coverups! series appear above. But it is a different thing to say the skull was intact than to say there was no craniotomy. The skull was “intact”; that is, the skull cap was secured to the rest of the skull, apparently by mummified tissue. It is apparent from the skull photos that the incision line is not that obvious-one would have to study the skull in order to see it. And the evidence shows that neither Groody nor Baumgardner “studied” the skull. They did their jobs and left, presumably in an expeditious manner. Indeed, the men never even thought about the craniotomy until days after the exhumation.

One final issue under the heading of “JFK Urban Legends”:

Paul Groody:

“I feel as though someone had gone to the cemetery...off hours, had taken the head of really of Lee Harvey Oswald that now was dead-how he got that way I don’t know but at least it was the head-and had brought the vault to the surface as best they could being a heavy item as it is-a tripod lifting that body lifting the body and the vault out of the grave. In the process the bottom of the vault fell breaking the vault causing the casket to deteriorate to a degree. Then of course, removed the head of the one that was there that had been autopsied and put this head in its place so that we would find the teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald-that’s my theory-this is what I think happened. Whoever caused that is the same faction that caused the assassination in the first place. In my mind, a cover-up had taken place.”

Groody’s statement became the beginnings of what could be called “The Head in the Box Theory”. Jack White described the theory at the JFK Research Forum this way:

“There was much opposition to the exhumation by ROBERT OSWALD until MARGUERITE DIED. After her death, Robert suddenly dropped his opposition. When MARGUERITE was BURIED NEXT TO LEE, there were only a few inches of dirt separating the MARGUERITE HOLE and the LEE CASKET. A mortuary tent was placed over the site as is usual. Then later, the exhumation occurred. Several weeks after the exhumation, I received an anonymous phone call. The caller would not give his name because of violation of his secrecy oath. He said he was a FORMER AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER who was stationed at CAFB in Fort Worth . He said he wanted me to know that AT THE TIME OF THE MARGUERITE DEATH, A SECRET AIR FORCE FLIGHT LANDED AT CARSWELL AFB. He was part of the security detail. Unloaded from the air force plane was a small wooden crate about the size of a hatbox. Oddly it was loaded into a HEARSE. That was his story. He said he follows the JFK case, and had heard of the CRANIOTOMY PROBLEM, and wondered if there was any connection. Draw your own conclusions.” (Emphasis in original)

White attached the following disclaimer to his yarn:

“I cannot vouch for the veracity of this story. But I cannot say it is untrue either.”

Of course, the story is untrue since the head was attached to the body on arrival at Baylor. There was no switch at all and the evidence proves it. The Paul Groody story seems to represent a microcosm of what is wrong with JFK assassination research at this late date. Unfortunately, the umbrella man, the three tramps and the changed motorcade route seem to be still with us. And this writer is under no illusion that Groody’s story will be completely put to bed. But maybe researchers will think twice before placing complete belief in it. That is all that one can ask.

Postscript

In 2002 Groody appeared in a documentary entitled Infamous Grave Sites on the Travel Channel to discuss his allegations. In Groody’s first quote he states, “Who was this man? I don’t know and like I’ve always said, I don’t care-none of my business, I only buried the guy.” Groody stayed with his basic story even when confronted with photos of the head, “That head that was now on that body was not the head that I embalmed. I know that the body had not been changed, because I recognized various things about the body that I had done.” But Groody seemed to offer no explanation for how a head switch could have occurred. When asked if a conspirator could have been disguised as a policeman or security guard he unequivocally stated, “No sir, no possible way that could have been done because all the security was around it and there was no way that anybody could carry a head in a sack or anything and do a head change at that time.”

So what are we to make of Paul Groody and his possible motivations? Three possibilities come to mind:

Groody is telling the truth and a vast conspiracy somehow managed to switch the head of Lee Harvey Oswald despite a great deal of evidence that it didn’t happen. Groody is lying for reasons known only to him. Groody is sincere about what he believes he saw but simply mistaken.

This writer believes number one can be ruled out by the evidence presented here. What about number two? Those who know him describe Groody as a likeable and credible individual. Gary Mack stated, “He never indicated he was telling the story to get anything. In fact, when he and Baumgardner met with me and a reporter, they didn’t want any publicity, especially Baumgardner. They were hoping we could get some answers, as they were concerned about their recollection and its implications.”

Similarly Jack White said, “Embalming LHO was Groody's 15 minutes of fame. I found his story to be very credible and consistent, and filled with interesting details. I think he is very little different than most people who have some minor claim to fame...they

are anxious to tell people what they witnessed. Groody is very outgoing and personable, not shy at all. For such a person, I found nothing highly unusual about any of his

statements.” [33]

Indeed, Groody seems to have a unique personality that includes the occasional use of self-deprecating humor. Sometime in the eighties, he gave the following quote to the Dallas Morning News discussing arrangements for Oswald’s funeral, "The Secret Service wanted me to do it as secretly as I could and not put out any information. We were scared because the President had already been shot and now Oswald was shot. I didn't know if some other nut was going to shoot the dumb undertaker."

It seems then that number two can be ruled out as well. So place Paul Groody firmly in the third category with the research of Elizabeth Loftus and others in mind.