CHAPTER II

THE CONTROVERSY

(Some of the links contain sound and video files which will take some time to load...please be patient. We apologize if some of the links are temporarily unavailable. Unfortunately, we cannot control them. We have recently (2/22/2002) updated all the links in this chapter)

"...There are things you will not learn in your lifetime..."

Earl Warren, 1964

"Beginning in the 1970s, Gallup polling showed that the majority of Americans believed there was a conspiracy involved in the assassination… In our most recent update last week, 81% of Americans say that there was a conspiracy with more than one person involved, with only 13% holding out for the lone gunman theory."

- From the GALLUP TUESDAY BRIEFING April 3, 2001

The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy took place on Friday, November 22, 1963 at approximately 12:30PM, Central Standard Time. The President was shot while riding in an open-top limousine that was part of a motorcade taking the Presidential party from Dallas' Love Field to a planned political luncheon with Texas businessmen at the Dallas Trade Mart.

(HEAR the "precautions" that were supposed to have taken place, according to DPD Police Chief Jesse Curry)

(See a virtual tour of the motorcade route, courtesy of The Dallas Morning News click HERE)

As the President's vehicle traveled on Elm Street, through Dealey Plaza, heading toward the entrance to Stemmons Freeway, several shots were heard. Both the President and Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC), seated directly in front of him, were struck. The two men's wives and two Secret Service agents, also in the car, were unharmed. A bystander, James A. Tague, was also hit and slightly wounded, as he stood on Main Street, just in front of the "triple underpass" caused by Elm, Main and Commerce Streets passing under the train tracks leading into and out of the nearby Union Terminal. Many other people witnessed the events from a variety of vantage points all over the Plaza and some had differing opinions as to just what had happened in those gruesome few seconds. The President received a grievous wound to the head. Both he and Governor Connally were immediately rushed to nearby Parkland Memorial Hospital, where gallant efforts to save JFK proved futile. He was pronounced dead at around 1:00PM CST as a result of massive damage to the brain caused by gunshot. The governor, also very seriously wounded, though not in the head, survived.

(Hear the assassination as it happened: CLICK HERE)

Roughly two dozen people in Dealey Plaza were rounded up and questioned, to varying degrees, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. None were "officially" held. That night, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), the seven-story structure located on Elm Street at the corner of Houston, was charged with the assassination. He had been arrested that afternoon and charged with the murder, in nearby Oak Cliff, of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, which took place within the hour after the assault on the president. Two days later, this suspect was also shot and killed by one Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner, in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters, to the horror of millions of television viewers who watched it live, thus being denied the ability to defend himself against the charges and robbing history of the proper legal conclusion to the case. The suspect's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Oswald denies the charges...HERE HERE)

According to assassination researcher and author, Dr. Walt Brown, "these are the only true facts known" about what was undoubtedly one of the most trying, and strange, weekends in American history. What happened afterward is considered by many Americans to be even more troubling than the tragic misdeeds of that weekend themselves.

Witnesses to history in Dealey Plaza that afternoon, saw and heard sights and sounds that might or might not have been relevant to just what had happened. That much of the testimony from the eye and ear-witnesses in Dealey Plaza was both fragmentary and confused was to be expected. After all, they were just there to catch a glimpse of the President and his beautiful wife, not to witness and identify clues to a murder. Most of their recollections vary, dependent upon just where they were during those awful minutes.

(Follow NBC NEWS coverage of the assassination from approximately 2PM EST until 5:30PM EST...click HERE RealVideo)

Trial attorneys, both prosecutors and defenders, know that the testimony of casual eyewitnesses is notoriously unreliable, unless corroborated by other testimony or physical evidence. Pieces of physical evidence linking some person or persons to the crime are usually the most important items sought by police investigators. They are tangible, they hold up well to being cross-examined, and they are usually linked to a suspect either scientifically or by some form of documentation. In the case of a murder by gunshot, the weapon involved, any bullets and/or fragments, shell casings, fingerprints and an autopsy report that determines the cause of death and direction of the shots are the best evidence. The testimony of the witnesses is then used to back up the physical evidence. In this case, all were available; there were even some notable bonuses...home movie films taken by several bystanders, along with many still photographs that showed the entire sequence of events, from many different vantage points. In fact, it remains the most photographed assassination in history. Additionally, there were enough law enforcement officers present as the crime was being committed, to solve the riddle of creation. What more could an investigator want? This case should have been a breeze to close with irrefutable physical evidence and testimony to back it up.

Somewhere along the way, something went very, very wrong. The case that Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade referred to that weekend as "open and shut" has proved to be anything but. For over 40 years many people have had a feeling at least, that all was not as it was presented. Oswald was not even buried before the cry went up for a full investigation into the events of that weekend. The televised slaying of his accused murderer intensified the public outrage over the assassination of the President tremendously. Many sensed something deeply sinister about the dramas that had unfolded, basically, right before their eyes.

There were calls for inquiries by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Secret Service, Congress and the Attorney General of Texas. The public needed to know what had gone on. The world tensions of the period only heightened the paranoia, frightening both the government and the average citizen.

President Johnson Creates The Warren Commission (WC)

(1963-1964)

" (Earl) Warren made up his mind about what, in his opinion, was in the best interest of the country, and then set about to achieve it"

Mark Lane

On November 29, 1963, one week after the assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), in order to stave off all other investigations, issued Executive Order # 11130 which created a "blue ribbon" commission, "... to examine the evidence developed by the FBI and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light...make further investigations as the Commission finds desirable..." and prepare a report explaining what had happened. The distinguished panel was headed, reluctantly, by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court, the highest judicial officer in the country, and it forever became known as the Warren Commission.

(Hear LBJ and Hoover discuss who should be on the Commission--Click HERE Real Audio--about 19 minutes)

Hand-picked by the President, then cajoled, and/or forced into serving on the bi-partisan seven-man jury, for either "the good of the country" and/or through fear of another possible nuclear confrontation and war, were members of Congress, businessmen and career government employees of seemingly impeccable credentials, including such choices as:

Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Michigan), then a relatively unknown Congressional figure, his selection was insisted upon by former Vice-President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon later, while President, would again turn to Ford as his surprise choice to complete the term of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the latter's resignation over corruption charges. This left Ford in position to become the only man in history to be President without ever entering a national election when Nixon was also forced to resign in August of 1974 over his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Ford, while Vice President, staunchly defended Nixon from the mounting Watergate related accusations and then after becoming President, protected Nixon completely by pardoning him from "...all crimes..." committed while in office.

According to internal FBI memos, Ford was thought of as "our man on the Commission" by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. He later wrote a book on his Warren Commission experience and findings that is laced with what was at that time "classified" information...information it was a federal crime to have made public. For some reason Ford was never charged. He is, at this writing, the only surviving Commissioner and still staunchly defends its findings, much as he staunchly and blindly (and as history now shows, mistakenly) defended Richard Nixon during the Watergate debacle.

In that regard, Time magazine reported in its February 4, 1974 issue:

After meeting with Nixon for nearly two hours, Vice-President Gerald Ford declared that the White House was in possession of evidence that "will exonerate the President" of complicity in the conspiracy to conceal the origins of the Watergate wiretap-burglary.

Later on, the article said:

...the President had offered to show it to him (Ford), but he had "not had time" to look at it.

What this shows is that it appears Ford had a track record of simply accepting what he was told, without wanting or needing verification, and then telling anyone who would listen that all was well, good and true.

I've heard such people called mouthpieces.

Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whose employment, along with fellow long-term, top-ranking CIA officials General Charles Cabell and Richard Bissel, had been terminated by the slain President in the wake of the 1961 Cuban exile Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, the event which set the stage for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, where the world teetered on the brink of a US-USSR nuclear confrontation, and also drove Castro's Cuba deeper into the Soviet sphere.

Dulles was the only selectee who did not originally turn down the Commission assignment, when asked to serve by LBJ. He also, consciously, withheld CIA information which may have, somewhat, influenced the Commission's findings. Many have wondered over the years if that was, perhaps, his reason for being on the Commission.

He also spent a great deal of effort, beginning at the first meeting of the Commissioners, attempting to show that all American political assassinations were the work of "lone nuts."

John J. McCloy, prominent New York banker, who, along with LBJ and Hoover, had been among the invited guests at a "party" thrown the night before the assassination at the Texas home of conservative oil man and Johnson/Hoover friend and confidant Clint Murchison.

Also appointed to the Commission were Rep. Hale Boggs (D-La) and Senators Richard Russell (D-Ga) and John Sherman Cooper (R-Ky).

The Commission was to be assisted by all branches of the federal government, with the FBI acting as its investigative arm. Any state institutions involved were to furnish all information requested. Using subpoena power and an unlimited budget, they were to get to the bottom of the whole affair and report their findings directly to the President. By wording it this way, the WC was not designed, nor allowed, to get into a public debate over its findings.

According to the minutes of the first meeting between the Commissioners, they had no initial intentions to even call witnesses...they were going to look at the FBI report, maybe review some of the physical evidence, and get back to their regular jobs...

But the FBI report, unfortunately, raised more questions than it answered...and most of the Commissioners knew it.

Many within the Commission (and elsewhere) feared that an in-depth investigation might point to foreign involvement in an external plot, which included Oswald, because of Oswald's quickly publicized background. That background included a "defection" to the Soviet Union in 1959, and after his return to the United States, involvement with the pro-Castro Fair Play For Cuba Committee. When Oswald's recent trip to Mexico City, where the CIA placed him both at the Cuban Embassy and on the phone with a known KGB officer at the Soviet Embassy, became "known", Oswald's background looked ominous.

The consequence of finding communist involvement and making it public was the probability of global thermo-nuclear war. That was enough to make even the most ethical commission member give pause for thought into what was moral and correct versus what was prudent.

Additionally, in January 1964, after media-spread rumors surfaced that Oswald was an FBI informant, Commissioner Dulles told his fellow Commissioners that if they tried to look for evidence of an internal conspiracy, they'd never find it because employees of the agencies involved would lie, even under oath.

With such a two-headed monster facing them, the members of the Warren Commission faced a no-win scenario. Any search for the truth was a potential disaster and/or a maddening effort in futility...

Sadly, for all, from that point on the Commission became, out of a perceived, but erroneous necessity, a body to bury the rumors, not investigate the murder.

Ten months later, the Commission finally finished its "investigation" and issued its report. With as much fanfare as possible, Chief Justice Warren presented the 888 page report directly to President Johnson on September 24, 1964, just prior to the 1964 presidential election...in time to reassure the public that, of course, no one within the either the US, USSR or Cuban governments had anything to do with it.

The report stated that all the evidence pointed to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had fired three shots from a 6.5mm, bolt-action, Italian-made, World War II surplus, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, equipped with a cheap plastic Japanese-made 4 power telescopic sight, while crouched in a 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. Firing from behind the President's limousine and using this war surplus weapon, he had accomplished some incredible shooting exploits: one bullet struck President Kennedy in the back of the neck, came out his throat, went on to strike Governor Connally under the right arm pit, break a rib, exit his chest, enter, shatter and leave his right wrist, and embed itself in his left thigh. Another shot somehow missed the car completely, hit the ground, ricocheted and wounded James Tague, who was standing over 200 feet from the limousine. A third shot struck President Kennedy in the back of the head near the hairline, deflected upward through the brain and blew out the top, right, rear of his skull, killing him within minutes. The report also stated, not surprisingly, that the Commission could find no evidence whatsoever indicating that anyone else was involved or that the assassination was the result of any conspiracy, either foreign or domestic.

These conclusions were vigorously disputed, even before they were formally made public, by a number of concerned citizens from all walks of life. The main reasons for the discontent were the lack of any explanation in the WCR as to why LHO did it, the feeling that the scope of the Commission's investigation had been far too narrow, and the conflicts between the Report's conclusions and what many witnesses publicly stated that they had seen. A horde of Warren Commission rebuttal books were published in years 1964 through 1966, and a national poll in 1965 showed less than 50% of the population believed in the Commission's conclusions.

Challenged by such early critics as Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, David S. Lifton, Anthony Summers, Penn Jones, Jr. and Josiah Thompson, who asked tough, probing and, quite often, blatantly sarcastic questions, many doubts soon arose about both the real purpose of the Commission and its conclusions. Antagonists also questioned why the meat of the "investigation", the twenty-six volumes of testimony and exhibits, released some months after the Report, were so confusing, disjointed and issued without an index of any kind. Why was such an important study, provided with virtually unlimited funds, put together in such a slipshod manner?

Almost immediately after the supporting volumes were finally published, the critics brought to light a number of discrepancies: the home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder, a mainstay of the investigation, had had its sequence of frames of the fatal shot, shown as still photographs in the report, reversed to make it appear that JFK had been thrown forward by the impact of the bullet, when in reality he had been thrown backward...a "printing error" according to FBI Director Hoover (FBI Document# 62-109090-472); no one, not even FBI, military and NRA experts had ever been able to duplicate the shooting feats, despite a number of seemingly "rigged" attempts and numerous statements that the shots were "easy"; the bullet alleged to have caused all the non-fatal wounds in Kennedy and Connally appeared virtually pristine, a fact never alluded to in the Report itself; critics brought forth many witnesses whose stories were in serious conflict with the WCR conclusions and who had been conveniently ignored or, in some cases, told to keep quiet; some other witnesses, quoted in the WCR, soon claimed that their sworn testimony had been altered; the autopsy conclusions and the procedure itself were viewed with a great deal of skepticism, due to the relative inexperience of the three military pathologists who had performed it. They lacked a strong background in forensic pathology, the skills needed to accurately perform a proper medico-legal autopsy and they had, collectively, virtually no experience in dealing with gunshot wounds. These misgivings were very serious, especially after the critics pointed out that the medical staff from Parkland Memorial Hospital had originally described the wounds they had seen and treated as markedly different from those described in the autopsy report. The critics also brought out that the Commission had failed to view either the autopsy photographs or the x-rays, leaving open the question of whether the doctors in Dallas or the Bethesda autopsy crew were correct. The differences in the locations and descriptions of the wounds pointed to different positions from which some of the shots had originated. Why were the observations of most of the civilians involved, so different from those of the government employees?

These initial questions, all extremely valid, troublesome and unanswered, set the stage for the staggering controversy.

While the critics soon took to the lecture circuit, contested the findings and transformed thousands more into skeptics, the Warren Commission itself had disbanded immediately after issuing its report, as per its orders, leaving behind no formal panel to answer the nagging questions. The autopsy doctors and all the other military personnel involved in the autopsy were required to sign secrecy oaths. Rumors abounded that some of the Commissioners disagreed with their own report and that most had heard very little testimony nor seen much of the physical evidence. Yet, despite all this ongoing criticism and mounting disapproval, the WCR continued to stand as the official conclusion, with the blessings of the U.S. government. While the critics continued to grumble, the press tried to ignore the controversy.

Jim Garrison and the Clay Shaw Trial

(1967-1969)

In the later 1960's, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison burst upon this scene when he charged international businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the death of John F. Kennedy. Garrison, convinced that something was amiss after he read through the "26", had begun his own investigation into Oswald's activities in New Orleans.

The Shaw trial was, and is, the only criminal proceeding to ever review the assassination and the only time witnesses and evidence have been subjected to both direct and cross-examination. While the outcome, with Shaw being found not guilty, hurt conspiracy theorists and bolstered the Warren Commission findings, many previously hidden facts, including the first public review of the sequence of events, via the Zapruder film, became known. One of the other interesting items to be made public at the trial was the fact that certain non-medical military officers and unidentified civilians had given both directions and orders at the autopsy. The only forensic pathologist present at the procedure, U.S. Army Col. Pierre Finck, also testified that not only was he denied access to the dead President's clothing, but that none of the 3 pathologists had reviewed any of the autopsy photographs nor most of the x-rays, either. In fact, it seemed, no one had, as of 1969, seen these crucial pieces of evidence. A request by Garrison's office to see them was denied by the United States Supreme Court (of which, Warren was still the Chief Justice). The trial also showed to what extent the government would go to keep anyone from trying to crack the Warren Commission's veneer. Subpoenas to federal officials were routinely ignored; requests that witnesses from other states be sent to testify were denied; the federal government withheld crucial evidence about Shaw’s CIA connections; Garrison's office was even bugged.

The government, ably assisted again by the "free" press, also attacked Garrison personally with numerous malicious stories to undermine his credibility. They were quite successful. Next, the U.S. Attorney filed a series of corruption indictments. These charges nearly ruined Garrison. Meanwhile, all the adverse publicity took the spotlight off of the findings of his investigation, and instead focused the attention on Garrison, himself. That not one of the charges against him could ever be proven was immaterial. Garrison, by now a buffoon in the public's eye, became the focus of nationwide jokes, and even conspiracy believers never took his investigation seriously. Not surprisingly, the media also routinely ignored most of the important information disclosed during the trial.

Despite all this, Garrison did manage to prove, to the jury's satisfaction, that a conspiracy did exist in Kennedy's murder. He was just unable to adequately connect Shaw to it. He also uncovered and made a matter of public record, the fact that a lot of important evidence, including the brain of the deceased President was "missing". This made any attempt at a formal public review of the furtive autopsy forever impossible.

Even after the Shaw trial verdict, the criticism of the Warren Commission conclusions continued to mount through the early and mid-1970's, especially as the facts surrounding a CIA-Mafia plot to assassinate Cuban Leader Fidel Castro, and other questionable actions by the intelligence community, came to light as a result of congressional investigations of the CIA, in the wake of the Watergate political scandal that doomed the Nixon Presidency. Not only did Castro now become a key suspect, but also great numbers of average citizens began to realize that major departments of the federal government had been acting in a way that few would have ever previously believed possible.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)

(1976-1979)

"It became clear that the intelligence organizations were not going to give us that information (Oswald's relationships with the intelligence communities), and it became clear that Congress was not going to take on the FBI and CIA in order to get that information, so I knew that it was hopeless."

HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tanenbaum, (to Mark Lane on why he resigned his post)

Finally in 1977, partially due to the public uproar when photo analyst Robert Groden showed the Zapruder film to the public for the first time on Geraldo Rivera's television program, the House of Representatives bowed to the ever-mounting public pressure and created another panel. They were to look into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) and Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK), which, many believed, were all somehow linked. JFK assassination researchers hailed this as an opportunity to finally destroy the myth of the WCR and get to the bottom of the controversy.

These hopes and expectations were very quickly to be dashed.

In the new report, issued in 1978, the HSCA concluded that, while President Kennedy had probably been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, involving another gunman firing from the "grassy knoll", in front and to the right of the President, the fatal shot, based on all the physical evidence reviewed, had been fired, as stated in the WCR, by Lee Harvey Oswald, firing from the "sniper's nest." Conspiracy believers reacted, almost immediately, with profound exasperation over these conclusions. While somewhat pleased with the HSCA acoustic findings that more than one person had been involved, they felt that the HSCA investigation had again fallen far short of what was needed. They quickly noted that a great deal of the evidence from the finally "found" and reviewed autopsy photographs and X-rays was shown to differ, significantly, from the autopsy report accepted by the Warren Commission. What they showed were major flaws in the prevailing locations of ALL of the wounds suffered by Kennedy. The pictures and X-rays agreed with neither the Parkland Memorial Hospital staff recollections, nor the autopsy report! Since these photos and X-rays had never been seen by the Warren Commission nor the autopsy doctors, this was an incredible finding which meant that either the three prosectors had made notable errors in their placements all three wounds, had blatantly lied about what they had seen or that the finally reviewed photos and/or X-rays were faked. There was even a strongly held belief, by conspiracy theorists and others, that some of the photos and X-rays didn't even agree with each other! Conspiracy "buffs" also felt that the information uncovered about the possible involvement of the CIA had not been properly pursued. This material had been totally and illegally withheld during the Clay Shaw trial, where it would have most certainly affected the outcome.

HSCA insiders, afterward, told of the political infighting that had killed any real, intensive inquiry before it had even gotten started. Once original HSCA general counsel Richard Sprague, a former Philadelphia district attorney who had successfully prosecuted all those involved in the labor-union organized murder of United Mine Workers reformer Joseph Yablonski, was quickly forced to resign, for political reasons, and was replaced by Cornell University law professor and organized crime expert G. Robert Blakey, the scope, energy and direction of the investigation changed dramatically.

Sprague had, almost immediately after his appointment, angered and frightened the Washington elite by insisting on an open, in-depth and honest investigation, just the same as he would have run any other murder inquiry. During his interview for the job, Sprague admitted that he was a friend of WC counsel Arlen Specter, that he had not read the WCR or any of the 26 volumes, nor had he read any of the pro-conspiracy books. However, he would assume nothing going into the probe and said he would call ALL relevant witnesses, including Jackie Kennedy, John Connally and, by then, former President Gerald Ford. He also attracted and hired veteran prosecutors and investigators, who were devoid of any federal ties and some of whom were already feeling that there was evidence of a conspiracy. These fearfully independent actions soon cost him his job and the American people their best opportunity for ever getting to the bottom of the episode. Many believed that Sprague's problems were caused by the intelligence community trying to block his inquiry and thought this was both sinister and worthy of further inquiry. Most felt that some very powerful forces were carefully controlling both the depth and course of the so-called investigation.

After replacing Sprague, the more scholarly and less investigative Blakey, a former Justice Department attorney, focused more on how to write the report, rather than finding what to put into it. Money to do real investigative work was seriously curtailed and most of Sprague's staff of investigators was furloughed. Blakey wanted the study to concentrate on just an organized crime involvement theory, since that was his background, and he interfered with or blocked most attempts to investigate any other areas. Many people soon questioned both his motives and the one-sided deals he made with the intelligence community to arrange for the release of "requested" information. His actions also showed no desire whatsoever, to be "independent". In fact, he told Donovan Gay, who was charged with keeping all the records and documents obtained, "It would be easier for the CIA if you left." Blakey then fired Gay. The new general counsel also sought and obtained the approval of both the FBI and CIA for his more crucial personnel hirings!

HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tanenbaum, a former New York City assistant district attorney who had investigated, tried and convicted three black militants accused of murdering two NYPD officers in a long drawn-out and celebrated case that had started with only the sketchiest evidence, and a veteran of a number of other high profile murder investigations, has stated publicly that he resigned from his HSCA post when he realized that the Committee was no more interested in the truth than was the Warren Commission. He has said that the HSCA was unwilling to force both the CIA and the FBI to give the Committee unedited documents and that the Committee refused to use subpoenas or prosecute witnesses guilty of obvious perjury. He felt that, after Sprague had resigned, the entire effort was no more than a farce, aimed at appearing to be an in- depth re-investigation. Tanenbaum personally describes his feelings in the late-1980's Central Independent Television (British) documentary " The Men Who Killed Kennedy ".

Instead of solving the controversy, the HSCA findings and actions only further fueled it. The Committee's last minute judgment that someone had fired from the grassy knoll and the controversy over the autopsy pictures and X-rays were hailed by some researchers as "proof" of a conspiracy. Others disagreed, noting that only an independent laboratory's sound analysis had been used to establish that additional shots had come from the knoll area. A later scientific study, conducted under government contract, could not confirm those findings*.

(However, in March, 2001, a study done by Dr. D. B. Thomas, a scientist employed by the US Department of Agriculture reconfirmed the original conclusions, and also concluded that it is most likely that the fatal shot was fired from the knoll area. To see this published report in .pdf format, click HERE . I have verified Dr. Thomas' conclusions through an alternate source and I am satisfied that they are correct.

Curiously, the "rebuttal" review, undertaken at the request of the Department of Justice in 1980 by the National Research Council, appears to contain a large number of relatively simple errors and misleading statements that tend to erroneously discredit the initial findings. It is difficult to explain them away as just mistakes, given the expertise and reputations of those on the panel. A distinct pattern of overreaches and disinformation can be seen, especially when one also considers that the NRC never formally published their report, thus limiting the chances that other qualified scientists would have access to it.)

The photographs and X-rays were explained as, simply, evidence that the autopsy doctors had done a very poor job. The controversy continued to be a favorite topic on talk radio and a whole new series of books were published, many by those associated with the HSCA inquiry. By the end of the decade, the ability to repudiate or confirm the government conclusions was becoming more and more difficult since many key witnesses were no longer living. Audits also showed that additional evidence was now being listed as "missing" from the National Archives, without explanation or accountability. And, despite the HSCA recommendation that the investigations into the assassinations of both JFK and MLK be reopened (and despite their conclusion that a second gunman, still at large and unidentified, fired at Kennedy), the Justice Department to date, has failed to do so.

Still, as the 1980's began, despite all the efforts of the government and others who supported the WCR/HSCA conclusions, the percentages of the public who had become inclined to believe in the conspiracy concept, continued to increase. Those in the forefront of this movement however, were incapable of bringing the issue to a climax, due to the baffling bias shown by the national news media. It seemed that anything uncovered which supported the WCR findings got heavy coverage; anything that conflicted, was to be found only on the back page of the Westbygod Gazette, in small print. Only through the continuing resolve of a few undaunted researchers, dedicated to the search for the truth, was the issue kept alive through the 1980's and into the 1990's.

Those researchers, using the Freedom of Information Act, finally began to pry loose a great many items previously withheld from the public as matters of "National Security". Get used to that term, as it will come up often in my narrative. Its meaning and usage are as fluid as water.

New books and documentaries, spurred by the assassination's 25th anniversary in 1988 briefly fanned the flames as the decade closed, but generally the public seemed to be losing interest, much to the chagrin of the conspiracy theorists.

Oliver Stone Brings the Controversy to Hollywood

(1990-1992)

Just as the matter finally seemed to be fading from the American conscience, film director Oliver Stone injected tremendous new energy into the debate when his controversial movie, JFK, began production. It fostered a whole new wave of books, and an American Bar Association (ABA) "mock trial" of Oswald, which, not surprisingly, ended with a hung jury. It also appears to have brought a whole new generation of Americans into the controversy.

Stone's movie, part fact, part fiction and highly speculative, was loosely based on the Garrison investigation. It angered many of those on both sides of the question, and Stone and his movie were subjected to a media blitz of condemnation even before filming ended. In the forefront of the attacks was one of the newspapers and journalists who had defended the Warren Commission Report most strenuously...the Washington Post and its resident intelligence community reporter, George Lardner, Jr.

Overall though, the "lone nutters" (the name given those who support the single gunman theory) were appalled at Stone's arrogance in portraying Garrison and his work in such a well meaning and positive light. The "conspiracy buffs" were also far from thrilled with his choice of the Garrison investigation as the vehicle for his drama. They were uncomfortable too, with his decision to speculate so much in his conclusions. While it proved nothing, it did rekindle mainstream public interest in the assassination, and brought it to the forefront once again, nearly 30 years after the events. It's strong box office results reflected the vast public interest that still remained about those events. It also showed that, despite all the efforts and all the passage of time, what really happened and who was responsible for it, was still being disputed just as vigorously as ever. That furor created enough heat that Congress, to "...allay lingering doubts...” passed the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. This bill is intended to open all government files about the assassination to researchers and the general public so that each citizen could decide for himself or herself where the truth lies.

President George W. Bush, a former Director of the CIA, signed the act into law on October 26, 1992. Little bits of released information, given to the public in small, well-spaced doses, have indeed changed the landscape since then, despite continual attempts by WC supporters to downplay or ignore crucial new revelations. These have been brought about by many documents that appear to undermine the more crucial portions of the Commission's conclusions. In contrast, to date, nothing has been released that categorically reinforces the WCR conclusions...despite media attempts to make some items appear that way.

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)

(1993-1998)

In fact, the 5-member, and allegedly non-political Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), the body that was created to facilitate the release of these records, finished its mandate on September 30, 1998. Its final report showed that, even 35 years later, a number of federal government agencies still refuse to submit files for scrutiny by "outsiders" and the ARRB recommended that Congress take whatever steps necessary to get these files released. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Congress does. Also of interest is the fact that, while all the documents have, allegedly, been entrusted to the National Archives, archivist Martha Wagner Murphy has informed this writer that the actual data entry of the documents and files into the Kennedy Assassination database is left up to the government agency responsible for the document's release. This unfortunately means that, IF the CIA or some other agency should "forget" to enter a certain document into the database, unless a researcher stumbles across it while looking through a certain file, the public will not know that the document exists!!

Since these same agencies have tried for over 30 years to hide and suppress these documents, I know that I am not comfortable with such a system.

Additionally, I have communicated with researcher Anna-Marie Kuhns-Walko who, as a freelance assistant to a number of researchers and authors, spent literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours going through the collection, file after file and document after document, at the National Archives. She informed this writer that, not only did she find hundreds of "unlisted" documents, but that she showed so many to the National Archives staff, requesting that the situation be corrected, that they became somewhat uncomfortable having her around, showing them the errors.

Nor am I comfortable with the way that the information that undermines the lone assassin theory is "released" to the public. Small dose after small dose. In comparison, it appears that the Warren Commission released everything, all at once, which supported its theory. This allowed for the maximum effect for; the current methods represent the minimal effect against. It also proves that the government still controls the evidence...and most likely always will.

To highlight that fact, let me tell you of a personal and currently ongoing experience. Long ago I thought that the laws of the land were to be obeyed...by both we the citizens and the government. I have since found that the citizens are expected to obey and the laws enforced, but with the government its a different story altogether (I'm sure to most of you that is not a revelation).

In late July of 1998, I sent a properly executed and valid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FOIA officer of the FBI. That request asked for a copy of a 17-page interview conducted by Roy Cohn of one Thomas Corbally. The interview took place in the mid-1960's and contained information in regards to the sex/spying scandal that caused former British Secretary of War John Profumo's resignation. Some JFK researchers have long felt that there may have been a connection between that scandal and Kennedy. I found it intriguing that the JFK Assassination Records database did not contain a single reference to this interview, so I requested its release. I gave them the record series to make it easier to find it.

The law required that the FBI make a determination of the release of this document within a reasonable period of time. As the months came and went, I dispatched 3 follow-up letters to US Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, since I haven't the foggiest idea who enforces laws that the government is supposed to abide by. Yet, the best I, or Senator Mikulski's staff could get from the FBI was that they are "backlogged" and would answer my request as soon as possible.

And she's a Democrat, too!!

Does 18+ months sound like a reasonable time frame or does the word "stonewalling" come to mind?

Imagine the consequences for the citizen who filed his IRS return 18+ months after its due date and claimed only that he was backlogged? However, it appears that the government can make or break the rules as it sees fit.

FINALLY, on April 19, 2000 the FBI actually responded to my request...naturally, they denied it, supposedly because the document is not cleared for release due to the possibility its sources and/or informants might be compromised....after 35 YEARS?? Must have been one hell of a source!!!

It is therefore now necessary for me to enter the appeal process. One can only imagine how long that will take. Stay tuned, but don't hold your breath. That process started May2, 2000.

Click HERE to see a copy of my appeal letter.

UPDATE: On May 20, 2000 I received a letter from the Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy. It said that my appeal had been received on May 8th (the response was dated May 15th) and told me that they had a "...substantial backlog of pending appeals..." and would get to mine as soon as possible. It was signed by someone with the first name of "Priscella" but whose last name I cannot read...the respondent's TYPED name is Claudia J Tweed...

I'll now have to write them again and ask if "substantial" means 500 or 50,000...I mailed that letter on June 1, 2000 and I will update when I get a response.

UPDATE 2: On July 25th I received a letter from Senator Mikulski in regards to my original appeal letter (May 2nd). Senator Mikulski forwarded a letter from John M. Kelso, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice Section Chief, FOIA Office of Public and Congressional Affairs. In it he acknowledged my appeal letter. To date NO ONE within the federal government has told me what a "...substantial number of pending appeals..." means.

UPDATE 3: On September 11, 2000 I received a letter from Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy. Mr. Huff states "After careful consideration of your appeal, I have decided to affirm the initial action in this case." He goes on to say that the information contained in the interview, "...could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of third parties and to disclose the identities of confidential sources and information furnished by such sources. This material is not appropriate for discretionary release."

My only remaining course of action is to file suit in federal court...researching this, I find that I haven't the expertise needed to continue to pursue this on my own, nor do I have the money necessary to hire an able attorney to pursue it for me.

I must then appeal to those of you who visit this website.

If you are, or know of, an attorney who would be willing to assist me pro bono, please contact me.

It has also become apparent that, based on the writings of ARRB staff member Douglas Horne, the ARRB had a unique opportunity to finally clear up a great many matters that had been left untouched by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA and, just like all those government-backed attempts previously, they too, blew it.

One of those matters, finally having the surviving Parkland Hospital medical personnel individually review, under oath, the Bethesda autopsy photographs to see if the alleged wound differences could be rectified, would be pivotal in determining if indeed the wounds had changed when viewed at the autopsy from when seen in Dallas.

Another, the opportunity to finally prove that the Zapruder film was indeed taken by the Zapruder 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera and not tampered with, could have been accomplished by taking films from the Zapruder perch in Dealey Plaza, on a November afternoon, with the Zapruder camera. Both of these would have helped tremendously in determining the viability of most of the conspiracy stances, perhaps showing that wound alteration and evidence tampering did or did not take place.

Yet, according to Horne, the ARRB at first showed no desire to so much as depose any of the Parkland staff, much less have them view the autopsy photographs, until forced into it by a massive "write-phone-fax in" campaign spearheaded by assassination researchers.

Then, instead of doing it right by going to Dallas, taking the autopsy photographs and deposing each staff member individually while or after they reviewed those photographs, what was done was another "half measure"...some were deposed, as a group and the autopsy photographs were not viewed...because Kennedy family representative Burke Marshall would not give permission to the ARRB to show them...allegedly after being so influenced by National Archives archivist Steve Tilley, who is caretaker of the entire Kennedy Assassination Records Collection!!

I cannot but wonder by what authority, legal or moral, Mr. Tilley felt that he had the right to influence anything.

And, in the other case, while tests using a camera similar (get used to such tests) to Zapruder's were undertaken, for some unfathomable reason, the actual camera was NOT tested (even though it was already in Dallas...on loan to the Sixth Floor Museum) ...amazingly the "tests" showed anomalies which could not be explained when compared to the famous Zapruder film. Unfortunately, the report showing these anomalies was only released as the ARRB closed up...and conveniently too late for the now necessary further tests to take place...unless authorized by none other than Steve Tilley!!

I wonder if that will happen.

Here we see the same type of self-preserving half-measures and political pressure that has controlled all other mainstream attempts to get the controversy resolved for over 35 years again showing itself, while leaving us still wondering, instead of knowing; still guessing and arguing, while having it appear that no one wants to stand in the way of the truth.

Is there any wonder why the average American citizen distrusts his political "leaders"...or why the research community sometimes sounds and/or acts paranoid?

Yet, despite what appear to be conscious and repeated efforts to avoid attempts at any head-on resolution of the controversy, a number of ominous documents and depositions were released over the ARRB's tenure.

According to an electronic correspondence between ARRB's Doug Horne and assassination researcher Dr. David Mantik, they include but are not limited to:

1) A Top Secret FBI report, sent to LBJ in December 1966, which indicated that the KGB (the Soviet Union's CIA) secretly briefed its New York office in 1965 that it had evidence that Johnson was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

2) Inspector Thomas Kelley of the U.S. Secret Service wrote a memo on February 14, 1964 which stated that if, in the future, the FBI were allowed sole jurisdiction over investigations of Presidential assassinations, that a "venal" FBI director could single-handedly control the investigation, and "we could have another Seven Days in May situation."...Another??

(Seven Days in May is a book and movie, ironically filmed at the White House with President Kennedy's approval, about an attempted coup d'etat in the United States, led by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the approval and involvement of the sitting Vice-President; the movie, completed in 1963, starred Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas and was recently (1994) remade under the title of The Enemy Within)

3) The sworn testimony of JFK autopsy photographer John Stringer to the ARRB in the summer of 1996 conclusively proved that the photographs of "a brain" in the JFK Collection in the Archives could not be the photographs he shot at a post-autopsy supplemental brain exam----essentially proving that the brain photos in the archives are not of President Kennedy's brain, but rather some other brain.

4) The sworn testimony of former FBI agent Frank O'Neill to the ARRB in September of 1997 indicated that the brain photos in the Archives could not be Kennedy's brain because at autopsy, JFK's brain "was over half gone."

5) The sworn testimony of former FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert to the ARRB in September of 1997 indicated that the JFK autopsy photographs of an intact back of the head were incorrect, i.e., inconsistent with the large posterior defect they remembered seeing at the autopsy.

6) Numerous OPLANS (Operations Plans) released to the ARRB by the Pentagon revealed that the U.S. Military (i.e., the then Chairman of the JCS, Lyman Lemnitzer) was openly advocating a U.S. military invasion of Cuba before the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Other staff papers generated in 1962 and 1963 at the one-star level within the Pentagon, recommended that the U.S. invent and employ several ingenious pretexts for an invasion of Cuba with overwhelming U.S. force.

7) The sworn testimony of lead autopsy pathologist Dr. James J. Humes to the ARRB in 1996 indicated that the A-P (anterior-posterior---front to back) head X-ray of the President shown to him at the deposition in 1996 did not look the same as he remembered it looking on the night of the autopsy in November 1963. Specifically, the X-ray shows a large metal (bullet) fragment today which Humes did not remember seeing on the X-ray during the autopsy---nor did he remember searching for any such fragment on the body; furthermore, the X-ray shows other characteristics that Humes did not remember seeing at the autopsy, and which he did not understand when he viewed the X-ray in 1996.

(The implications of his remarks are that the present X-ray could be at least a partial forgery. See Chapter 4 The Autopsy, for an in-depth review.)

If you have not heard about any of these facts, it is because most of the mainstream media has not sought to so inform the public...something outlined as their duty to do by the Constitution. So the question remains, "Why haven't they?"

That's one of the reasons why the debate continues.

While both sides continue to quote (or in some cases invent) plausible reasons for some of the more questionable aspects of their points of view, produce experts to back their conclusions, and still ignore that which they don't wish to, or can't, account for, neither it seems, can establish a formidable enough argument to close out the disagreement. Opinion polls, taken by CBS News in 1993, the 30th anniversary of the assassination, showed that 80% of the public now believed that a conspiracy existed! That figure has changed very little since. Host Dan Rather seemed completely befuddled by those figures during a CBS News assassination anniversary special, since that program, once again, reiterated that the evidence still pointed only to Oswald. How could the public possibly believe in a conspiracy?

Most Warren Commission defenders, today led by researcher and author Gerald Posner and still supported by the mainstream media, believe that they do so only because so many conspiracy books have been written and the populace simply cannot deal with the fact that someone as inadequate as Oswald could have murdered Kennedy. Thus, according to the defenders, the public has allowed themselves to be brainwashed. They also claim that the "conspiracy buffs" have never produced a single shred of evidence to point to anyone other than Oswald.

On the other hand, the "buffs" feel the "lone nutters" continue to take the WCR conclusions as absolute proof instead of understanding the evidence. They also claim that the "nutters" still use circular arguments to sustain their conclusions, and that those conclusions have also never been proven, nor was the evidence on which they were, and are, allegedly based ever subjected to cross-examination by anyone defending Oswald or his rights. As they correctly point out, any piece of evidence can appear strong if it is presented without being scrutinized or questioned.

Which side is right? Is it really plausible to believe that a conspiracy of such magnitude could exist all this time without falling completely apart? Is it really possible that powerful elements within the United States still do not want the truth in this matter to be known? These have always been a WC supporter's most powerful arguments against a conspiracy.

To answer them, let us look at several things.

The first is Watergate, the scandal that rocked American politics like no other event in history and toppled the Presidency of Richard M. Nixon in 1974. We'll look here because we now know that this case was indeed a conspiracy, including and actioned by high ranking officials of the government, enacted to keep the truth about that episode and many connected to it from the public.

Despite the fact that the original Watergate burglars, many with potentially malevolent ties to the Kennedy Assassination, were caught red-handed, and one was linked to the president's re-election campaign within 48 hours, it took years before enough information was made public to show where the blame should be placed, who all was involved and how much additional criminal activity was being run by the president's staff.

It took that length of time, even with The Washington Post investigating around the clock and getting inside information, a full Congressional investigation by the opposing Democratic Party that controlled it, and the close media scrutiny surrounding the 1972 presidential campaign which was then taking place!

Why then did it take so long?...the guilty parties controlled the initial investigation through the FBI !!!

I can still recall then Attorney General, later convicted criminal (for his part in the cover-up), Richard Kleindeinst announcing the first set of Watergate indictments on September 15, 1972, just before the 1972 presidential election, and staunchly proclaiming that the "intensive" FBI investigation, "reaching out to cities all across the United States as well as into foreign countries", had found "absolutely no evidence" that any higher-ups were involved. Does that not sound coincidentally Warren Commission-like; was it not timed very Warren Commission-like??

Only the inside and, to this day, anonymous information obtained by intrepid Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein AND the weight of public opinion, spurred on by the relentless news media inquiries and coverage that Woodward and Bernstein's efforts helped inspire, finally brought out the truth.

In the case of the Kennedy Assassination, the power of the press has been, for the most part, conspicuously missing (or neutralized) from the scene since the very beginning* in regards to questioning some of the more obvious flaws in the "official" conclusions.

(* First Points: the bus carrying the reporters covering the Dallas trip was, inexplicably, moved back several places from its usual position in a normal motorcade; the position of the official White House photographer, usually in a vehicle directly in front of the presidential limousine, was also moved several places behind the limo)

Some people associated with the media have since stated that most mainstream journalistic attempts to challenge the "lone nut" conclusion have been internally suppressed, for reasons unexplained. Many conspiracy researchers have found it difficult over the years to find any domestic publishers for their works. It is still virtually impossible to even have a letter to the editor published by a newspaper, if it questions the government stance. I know, because I've tried, on several occasions.

These seeming First Amendment violations are not the only questionable efforts by the media that appear to be deliberately aimed at protecting the government findings. They have been a strange participant in this debate since almost the very beginning.

In fact, on Sunday night, November 24, 1963, a much younger Dan Rather breathlessly interrupted CBS evening programming after being the first, and at that time, the only newsman to see the Zapruder film. During his "Special Report" that night, he accurately described what he had seen, until the fatal head shot. In an incredible coincidence, one of many that dot these events, he mistakenly reported that the President's head "snapped forward with considerable violence" after the impact.

(Mr. Rather, in his autobiography, The Camera Never Blinks pgs 133-134, said, "I failed to mention the violent, backward reaction. This was...a major omission. But certainly not deliberate." However, what his "explanation" does NOT account for is the fact that his error was not one of omission; it was, in fact, an error of commission...misstating the facts on what he saw!! Such an act by a reporter is usually a death sentence to a career, tantamount to lying to the public.

Yet, despite this obvious gaffe, there can be no question that Mr. Rather's career skyrocketed because of the exposure he received from his Dallas coverage....am I the only person who considers this odd?)

That same mistake was also duplicated, eleven months later by Life magazine, which had purchased, on November 23, 1963, all rights to the film, and locked it away from the public's scrutiny. In its October 2, 1964 issue, Life ran the same sequence, again incorrectly. After realizing its "mistake", Life removed those frames and replaced them with both an entirely different frame from the film and story about it. As previously discussed, the Warren Commission Report too, showed these key frames in the same, incorrect manner, when it was released in September, 1964.

All of these events took place long before the general public was allowed to actually see the film (and judge the reaction) for themselves. Were these "errors" all benign coincidence or were they some sinister form of collusion, designed to mislead the public about the President's reactions, and possibly the point of origin of the shot?

These weren't the last incidents of strange behavior, bordering on complicity by the media, either. Why they have acted that way is, in my opinion, one of the most crucial aspects surrounding any conspiracy theory. How could the press just go to sleep on this? Why have they steadfastly refused to challenge the official conclusions? Why is so much of the reporting so blatantly slanted in support of the official stance, even today ? Is there some logical reason that they've stayed out of it ? The truthful answers to those questions would tell us much.

This unbelievable conduct has continued...even through today! In fact, my hometown newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, which is regarded as being amongst the finest newspapers in the world, has taken on an entirely different air in regards to the 2 longest on-going government-involved conspiracy cases...the assassinations of John F Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King. During the mid to late 1970's, The Sun published a number of questioning articles as it undertook an investigative report timed with the creation of the HSCA probe. In those days, the paper was owned by the independent A. S. Abell Company; today the Times-Mirror Syndicate owns it. And now, far from its stance in the '70's, it did not even publish the November 21, 1999 Associated Press article which stated that recently released documents show proof that J. Edgar Hoover lied to the Warren Commission in regards to what LHO did in Mexico City in September, 1963 nor the March 26, 2001 story carried in most newspapers across the country, including The Washington Post and New York Times about the published forensic science article placing the probability of another gunman on the grassy knoll firing the fatal shot at 96%...obviously they did not deem them newsworthy.

The Sun also waited until page 14 to cover the recent trial verdict (that Dr. King was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy) in the civil suit brought about by the family of Dr Martin Luther King...most local and network television stations used that as their evening news lead story. In contrast, the January 21, 2000 Associated Press story about the findings from the FBI lab review of Commission Exhibit 567, with its faulty pro-Warren Commission slant, was on page 4 and the report completed by the Justice Department and released on June 9, 2000 in which they say that there was/is no evidence of a conspiracy in Dr. King's assassination was carried on page 3.

After each, I immediately posted a Letter to the Editor about the handling of these stories, questioning why...and, of course, none of them were published.

Yes, understanding what is behind the media's continuing motivation would clear up a great deal. My research has shown that a number of media sources, both individual and corporate, were favorites of either/or Hoover's FBI and also the CIA, at least during the 60's. In so being, they parroted, for public consumption, that which those agencies wanted released into the public domain...and those organizations or reporters who challenged or showed either federal agency in a poor light, more often than not faced the wrath of that agency...a wrath that had considerable weight to it. Perhaps, and this is conjecture on my part, that would explain the initial handling of this situation.

It would then be possible to explain the current handling as a carryover of the initial errors. It may be near impossible for the press, both written and electronic, to explain not only their conduct, but also the fact that they were obviously manipulated...unable to now tell the truth, they can only save face by denying any untoward involvement and can only hope to avoid the fact that the original propaganda no longer holds water.

Just my thoughts on it.

The next part of the question of the probability of a conspiracy holding together this long revolves around the efforts of researcher and author Harrison Edward Livingstone, who finally, after nearly 30 years, was able to get one of the autopsy doctors to admit that, at the time of his death, John F. Kennedy had no adrenal glands as a result of his longtime fight with Addison's Disease. Despite years of speculation that this was true, and despite the fact that Kennedy's own physician always knew the truth, it took until 1991 for this relatively unimportant fact to become publicly known.

This admission damaged the testimony of one of the HSCA's most important witnesses, Dr. John K. Lattimer, the first to review the autopsy X-rays. Dr. Lattimer, a urologist *, claimed to have seen "atrophied" adrenal glands in the X-rays, an observation long deemed impossible by pro-conspiracy medical people, who have stated that a dye needed to have been injected into the body for the adrenals to have shown up, at all, on any X-ray. Critics also questioned the reliability of the rest of Dr. Lattimer's conclusions, including his verification that the X-rays were, in fact, those of President Kennedy.

(*Dr.Cyril Wecht, a past-president of the American Society of Forensic Pathologists, member of the HSCA medical panel and pro-conspiracy believer, stated the obvious truth...Lattimer knows little about anything above the navel.)

In fact, Dr Lattimer's unbiasedness has also been further impeached by the revelations of both a hidden and pre-existing working relationship with none other than J. Edgar Hoover, and his later gross errors (?) in his interpretation of JFK's "hands to the throat" action in the Zapruder film.

To that end, Lattimer, in a number of articles for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and his book, Kennedy and Lincoln , used the1880's research of Dr. William Thorburn into reactions to spinal injuries to prove that JFK's reaction was the direct and expected result of a spinal injury caused by the magic bullet. This hoax became known as the "Thorburn reflex or position." This fact is now utilized by virtually every WC defender...including the newest media darling...Posner.

Unfortunately for all, Dr. Lattimer not only had to consciously alter Thorburn's observations (and not let on) to fit the JFK reaction, he also, in order to add credibility to his initial article, listed a pair of neurosurgeons who never saw Kennedy's reaction, had only "suggested" that it might be a possibility and were not consulted on, nor assisted in, writing the article, as his co-authors ...another case of capitalizing on the tragedy while obscuring the truth through lies and hyperbole. And those who quote him appear to have readily, and conveniently, accepted his conclusions without so much as comparing them to Thorburn's work or interviewing his "co-authors"...just like the Warren Commission Report did in many cases.

I'd suggest that you, should you want to know more on this, get a copy of Kennedy and Lincoln and also Dr. Thorburn's research (available through any medical school or perhaps, hospital library...you can check the link to Amazon.com in the Epilogue and Bibliography section of this website for Lattimer’s book) and compare them yourself!

Remember, you're dealing with hyperbole and a great deal of disinformation...only by going to primary sources can you be sure.

With that all in mind what other, even more significant pieces of evidence or scientific observations are being withheld, misrepresented or have been lost or destroyed? Have often have you been misled?

As Dr. Kermit Hall, one of the 5 members of the ARRB stated at Lafayette College on November 11, 1998:

"The worst thing that can happen in a democracy is for members of the government to conspire to assassinate a duly elected official and then cover it up."*

*NOTE: Dr. Hall himself was guilty that night of hyperbole and of spreading disinformation. During his presentation to a packed auditorium he said that HE had seen "all" the documents presented to the ARRB and that they showed "no evidence" of a conspiracy...after stating it wasn't his job to make a determination. Just the day before, the New York Times had reported that an internal memorandum from ARRB staffer Doug Horne had concluded that the photographs of JFK's brain in the National Archives were fakes and that the autopsy description of the brain was likely from an examination of the brain in the photographs...hard to believe that Horne's conclusion wasn't some evidence of a conspiracy.

In addition, the ARRB received and reviewed millions of pages of documents during its tenure...it hardly seems believable that Dr. Hall could have personally seen, much less read in detail, all those reviewed by the ARRB...in fact, when Dr. Hall was questioned about the Horne memo, he claimed he couldn't comment because as he said: "I haven't seen it yet"#

# Note: Direct quotes are from an audiotape of the presentation made by this author

I agree, but, if someone is working for an agency which has information showing that such an event took place, and is called upon to find such evidence, would it not be human nature, knowing the ramifications to his agency and his job, for such an individual to destroy or deny such evidence existed? I mean, can you even imagine the total embarrassment IF information were uncovered that showed beyond doubt that say, J. Edgar Hoover conspired with others to murder JFK and then cover it up? The government named the new FBI headquarters building after the late, longtime Director...a less than fitting toast to the American way, wouldn't you think?

What about Lyndon Johnson? How good would it look if the government had to acknowledge that the person that NASA's Johnson Space Center is named after, had been involved in the murder of the man that NASA's Kennedy Space Center is named after?

Isn't it more reasonable to believe that such information would never make the public domain?

Still, a number of the main illusions that led to a less than needed review of the assassination by the Warren Commission initially have dissolved over the years. These factors are extremely critical when viewing the assassination and the investigation because the events and fears of the times play large in what happened and why. Its necessary to first set the stage for you, based on what was happening in 1963-1964, and what was "alleged" about Oswald.

The world was just over one year removed from the greatest nuclear confrontation of all time; the Cuban Missile Crisis of late October, 1962. As you probably know, the US and USSR stood toe-to-toe and eyeball-to-eyeball, until, at the last moment, the USSR "blinked" and removed the missiles from Cuba. Never before and never after that period have US forces been on a higher state of alert...it was THAT critical.

(I highly recommend the recent drama "Thirteen Days" starring Kevin Costner for anyone who would like to get a feel for tension that gripped the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis)

Most observers felt the USSR lost face. Subsequent events and knowledge tell us the USSR nuclear arsenal was not up to the probable task and Premier Nikita Krushchev was forced to back down. Many, many people, including military experts felt he would attempt to regain his lost pride. When that was all coupled to Oswald's background and his alleged Mexico City trip where he supposedly visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies, Soviet and/or Cuban involvement appeared certain.

Having your president assassinated by a foreign power appeared to be the tripwire that would cause a nuclear war, especially given the still heightened scrutiny between the 2 countries. It therefore became incumbent upon Washington's elite to NOT find the connection...which they accomplished by NOT investigating. Unfortunately, it never existed, as time has shown.

In fact, we now know that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover knew, without doubt, that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City, in a grossly incriminating way...before the assassination...and yet Hoover never allowed any of that information to make its way to the Warren Commission. He actually kept referring to that trip as evidence of Oswald's guilt...and as a fear tactic to "help" them avoid an in-depth investigation by its implication of Russian ties to Oswald and to the assassination!

So, the investigation was sidetracked because of non-existent fears that were artificially created by persons who also appear to have profited by JFK's assassination. Not a combination of events that makes one sleep better about this episode, to say the least, and one that certainly points to coercion, definitely planned deceit...and a conspiracy to cover-up the truth and implicate Oswald from the very beginning?...possibly.

And, despite numerous assertions and many publicized statements that such a cover-up is impossible in Washington, because if more than one person knows of it, it ALWAYS leaks, a cover-up in this case is possible. In this case, we are not dealing with typical Washington scandal material; this is not a sex scandal nor misappropriations of funds...this is the single most vile act to beset this country in the 20th Century...those with knowledge are not going to "leak" it because this "game" was played for keeps. If we could ask any of the hundreds of people with ties to the assassination who mysteriously perished in untimely manners, we might better understand the old adage, "Discretion is the better part of valor".

Let us not forget that the physical evidence is the absolute backbone of the case. It cannot be understated in its importance. It is the area that, in and of itself, was sufficient for the Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald alone was the assassin. They glanced at the physical evidence, saw how it was all tied to him, placed him at the scene and convicted him...all unfortunately without Oswald being available to defend himself and with no one questioning the huge "gaps" in the evidence, its handling and the entire "this is how it happened" scenario...very, very convenient, to say the least.

That physical evidence is also enough to make legal professionals ignore any testimony that is in conflict with the physical evidence. The axiom being that the testimony must be wrong because it doesn't agree with the physical evidence...end of discussion. That axiom is not limited to just this case. It is a basic axiom utilized by prosecutors all over the country, in countless less significant cases. Only conspiracy buffs and common citizens will believe that inconsistencies in testimony mean anything in the face of physical evidence. Seasoned professionals do not think that way, simply because any "framed" conspiracy is so very infrequent, other than in movies or television. Nor will they look at the evidence in that possible light...unless forced to by outside pressure...like the press.

Such is also the basis to defend the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report, and the HSCA final conclusions. Such is the main reasoning behind the beliefs of those who still defend those conclusions.

But, what if the physical evidence WAS tampered with?

At that point the entire landscape changes...dramatically.

Was the evidence tampered with? That's what YOU will need to decide.

If it wasn't, then Oswald indeed appears guilty.

These points are all extremely important since the case brought against LHO is totally circumstantial, as is every conspiracy theory. No report or witness can put Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30PM on November 22, 1963 with the rifle in his hands because the eyewitnesses seem to relate different stories depending on where in Dealey Plaza they were, and are divided as to where the shots came from. In fact, not one of the eyewitnesses told of a sequence of events that corresponds to the scenario as outlined in the WCR! However, no known witness can say that they saw Oswald somewhere else at the time of the assassination, either!

On the other hand again, even the WC's prime "Oswald did it" eyewitness, Howard Brennan, gave such vague and contradictory testimony that the Report itself states that the WC did not use it as a prime source for its conclusions. Additionally, Brennan's position, as shown in re-enactment photographs, does not reflect where he actually was, nor where he was actually looking at the time of the shots. The Zapruder film clearly shows him in a totally different position than that related to by both his testimony and government re-creations. We can be sure that FBI and other government investigators would have seen this also. Why then were the KNOWN erroneous re-enactment photographs of Brennan still included in the evidence, other than to artificially and wrongly make the case against the lone gunman appear stronger?

In a legal proceeding, such conduct would have been suborning perjury!! Such action hardly puts one at ease with anything else "said" unless there's something less impeachable to back it up.

The validity of the physical evidence, and what it proves, is therefore of paramount significance.

Logically, since each of the witnesses' observations can, indeed, be correct, and no one could positively identify any shooter, or shooters, the value of all the testimony is subject to the merits of all the physical evidence needed to establish the foundation for what truly happened.

Let us look at those most critical aspects of the case: The Physical Evidence. These items should give us the answers to the questions that we have. Do they really point to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, in a persuasive manner, so as to support the 30+-year-old conclusions of the Warren Commission Report or do they make no sense and look and smell like a red herring? The physical evidence should tie LHO to the gun and it should tie the gun to the assassination in a logical manner. We will see if they make the grade by looking long and hard at what they are and what they are not.

As we do that, let's keep in mind one very important factor and one I'm hoping we can agree on before going any further...the pieces of physical evidence in this case are like the links in a chain, in that, if just one piece fails, the entire chain breaks. If, and when, that happens, you'll need to look at all the other pieces of the chain in a different light...for example, if YOU are convinced that the "magic bullet" was planted, what does that say about the rifle...shell casings...photograph of Oswald with the rifle? In other words, to this author at least, the broken chain of physical evidence not only clears Oswald only...it becomes a chain of evidence pointing directly to a conspiracy...to both commit the crime, and since the "doctored" evidence points at Oswald, alone, to cover-up who was really involved.

And, unlike those who defend the WCR, I'm hoping you will not use the "assumption" that any part/incident happened as part of your "proof" that any other part of it happened...basically, just because fragments found in the limousine were ballistically matched to CE 139, the rifle entered into evidence, you cannot, and should not, assume that it all fits together, nor can you nor should you assume that, Oswald was the one who pulled the trigger. Are they a reason to believe its possible? Yes, certainly...but test the belief first. Make the pieces fit together without long and/or multiple leaps of faith.

I'd now like for you to go back in time, to 1964, and place yourself, for just a few moments, on the jury that never got to hear this case. You've been selected for what would have been one of the most celebrated juries of all time. Be proud of that selection. Be honest and attentive. Examine what is presented, analyze what you read, and keep your emotions in check, because what you are about to be exposed to, may both frighten and anger you. If the accused is guilty, don't let him get away with it. If he is not, the implications are staggering.

Do not allow yourselves to jump to any conclusion...just keep an open mind and view all the evidence.

When we are done, but NOT before, I'll need for you to answer the following simple question:

Is there any way that you could have voted to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of this murder, for any reason whatsoever, after reviewing all the evidence ?

If you simply have a reasonable doubt, that is not enough and you should say YES.

Cast your vote for OSWALD ALONE on my index page, enter your name in my Guestbook and say "YES, I still believe Oswald, alone, did it."

Those casting the Oswald alone votes should do so in just this manner, so as to prove that you actually read at least this section of what I wrote before voting...not that I don't trust you or anything. I'm just inspecting what I expect.

However, if you are convinced that he is not guilty, to the same degree that you would want to be convinced that he was guilty, your answer is NO and then we know that there was, indeed, a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, that powerful people were behind it and that our elected officials, aided by the press, have lied to us for over 30 years.

Go to:

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Epilogue & Bibliography

Back to Index