Kennedys and King Test host626

Category: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Original essays treating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, its historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.

JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023 Ahead of the 60th Anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination, But How Credible Is He?
Author of Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure to Protect President Kennedy, JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda, The Not-So-Secret Service, Whos’ Who in the Secret Service and Honest Answers About the Murder of President Kennedy: A New Look at the JFK Assassination

PART ONE: THE ADVANCE HYPE FOR THE BOOK

I personally find 88-year-old former JFK[1] Secret Service Agent Paul Landis a bit of an enigma: very credible in some respects, not so credible in others. Landis, who’s upcoming October 2023 book The Final Witness[2] made big headlines in early September 2023 on CNN[3], NBC[4], The BBC[5], TMZ[6], Vanity Fair[7], The New York Times[8], People Magazine[9], and other media outlets, was largely an unknown commodity to the public at large other than to JFK assassination researchers, as he is one of the eight Secret Service follow-up car agents who rode mere feet away from President Kennedy’s limousine when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63 (Sadly, Landis was also one of the 9 agents who drank the morning of the assassination[10]). The specific book excerpt that has caused such an uproar is the claim that Landis found a whole intact bullet on the top of the back seat of the presidential limousine-specifically, above the president’s seat where the bubble top would normally attach.

This was an explosive claim. If true, the whole Warren Commission single bullet theory would fall down like a house of cards and, thus, a conspiracy of (at least) two shooters would be readily apparent to all, as the so-called “magic bullet” (also known as Commission Exhibit CE399) could not have been the one to go on to allegedly strike Texas Governor John Connally in the back and cause all of his wounds. The bullet Landis claims to have found apparently did not even travel through JFK’s back but came back out of the wound as some sort of “short charge.” As everyone knows, accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald only had enough time to fire three bullets during the assassination with the ill-equipped bolt action Mannlicher Carcano rifle: one shot missed, one shot was the “magic bullet” that allegedly went thru Kennedy and on to Connally, and then there was the fatal head shot. Any more bullets and the Warren Commission was wrong- simple as that. Even President Kennedy’s nephew, the son of Robert Kennedy, commented as much:

So why is Landis an enigma? Because he appears to straddle the fence on the key issues of the case:

On the one hand, he says he now “has his doubts,” yet, on the other hand, he also states that he believes Oswald was the lone shooter. In addition, Landis wrote not one but two Secret Service reports shortly after the assassination that both indicate that a shot came from the front[11]:

If that wasn’t enough, Landis even verified their contents almost 16 years later when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (or HSCA) did an outside contact report involving Landis[12]:

That said, when Paul Landis was interviewed for Secret Service Agent Gerald Blaine’s 2010 book The Kennedy Detail, he changed his tune[13]:

The initial Landis book hype via Amazon.Com gives one the impression that the former agent will debunk conspiracy claims. From the Amazon.Com book page:

And yet, the September 2023 media blitz left the opposite impression: this was a book that would scream that there was something rotten in Denmark and there indeed was a conspiracy (the aforementioned bullet business).

Landis book states that he is “the final witness,” yet this is not true: fellow author[14] and Secret Service agent Clint Hill (on the opposite running board of the follow-up car), as well as Mary Moorman, the Newman Family, Tina Towner (also an author[15]), Milton Wright, Rosemary and Linda Willis, and others who witnessed the assassination are still with us. In addition, Landis book claims he is finally “breaking his silence,” yet nothing could be further from the truth: in addition to his two Secret Service reports in the Warren Commission volumes (the second a lengthy seven pages of details), Landis had the aforementioned 1979 HSCA contact, an interview for a 1983 newspaper article[16], an interview for a 1988 newspaper article[17], a 2003 interview for the A&E program All The President’s Kids (also a DVD), interviews for both the 2010 book The Kennedy Detail and the television documentary of the same name (also a DVD), a 2014 Vanity Fair article[18], a 2016 Sixth Floor Museum videotaped oral history, a 2016 Cleveland.Com interview, as well as several You Tube videos depicting local Ohio programs that Landis participated in.

In the 2016 Cleveland.Com interview, Landis came out against the Warren Commission’s single bullet theory that is absolutely essential in having Oswald as the lone assassin:

In fact, 2016 was something of a banner year for Secret Service revelations, as Clint Hill came out in his book Five Presidents also denouncing the single bullet theory[19]:

As with the Connallys before them, it is as if former agents Landis and Hill cannot comprehend the ramifications of not believing the single bullet theory.

Staying on Clint Hill for a moment, the former agent has been on the record for decades stating that the fatal wound to JFK involved the right rear of his head, indicating (although he would never admit on the record) a shot from the front, as entrance wounds make small wounds and exit wounds make larger wounds:

Excerpts from Hill’s 11/30/63 report[20]:

An excerpt from Hill’s 3/9/64 Warren Commission testimony[21]:

One of several examples from The Kennedy Detail[22]:

An excerpt from Hill’s first book Mrs. Kennedy & Me[23]:

An excerpt from Hill’s second book Five Days in November[24]:

An excerpt from Hill’s third book Five Presidents[25]:

And, perhaps most dramatically, Hill actually demonstrating the JFK head wound on the television documentary JFK: The Final Hours in 2013 (also a DVD):

In a September 2023 discovery by this author, it turns out that Paul Landis mirrored Hill’s location for the JFK head wound during his 2016 Sixth Floor Museum oral history[26]:

Hill and Landis were colleagues and friends for many years. Here is a 2010 photo of them (with Hill’s future wife and four-time co-author Lisa McCubbin) during the filming of The Kennedy Detail documentary in Dealey Plaza:

However, Hill came out against Landis book after he made the following announcement on his Twitter account:

Sure enough, Hill denounced Landis book on NBC Nightly News on 9/10/23. His thoughts were outlined in the Vanity Fair article referenced above:

The crux of the matter seems to be, for both Clint Hill and certain members of the JFK assassination research community (this current author included), the fact that Landis is previously on record a whopping three different times[27] in stating that what he now in 2023 calls a whole bullet, which he placed on JFK’s stretcher in the emergency room, was then merely a bullet “fragment” which he “gave to somebody.” Here is what he said in 1983[28]:

Here is what Landis said in 1988[29]:

And here is what Landis conveyed in The Kennedy Detail from 2010[30]:

Landis claimed in the Blaine book that he put the fragment on the seat, rather than giving it to somebody as he previously stated in both 1983 and 1988. If all this weren’t enough, Landis makes no mention of finding a bullet or bullet fragments in his 2016 Sixth Floor Museum oral history[31].

In Landis own 9/12/23 NBC interview, separate from the one Hill did,he reports three gunshots (which in 2016 he said were fired in “5 to 6 seconds,” with the second and third fired rapidly one after the other[32]) and didn’t address the discrepancy with his initial 2-shot reports from decades ago. He also never mentioned stating (again in two different reports) that one of the shots came from the front. Incongruously, he still seemed to favor an Oswald-did-it scenario and that there was no grassy knoll shot, despite his initial two reports stating that a shot came from the front.

My questions for Paul Landis today[33]:
- Please distinguish the bullet you are now referring to compared to the bullet fragment that since 1983 you’ve claimed that you found in the limo. Are these “bullets” the same? Is the new bullet in addition to the bullet fragments? Does the whole bullet you now recall finding in the limo physically resemble CE399?
- Please explain your thinking in November 1963 for not reporting this found bullet in your written reports. Was there explicit or implicit pressure to express or not express certain viewpoints? What form did that pressure come in? Are there additional unspoken revelations that you’re aware of from your Secret Service peers?
- When did you first tell another person about the whole bullet you now report having found in the limo? What is the oldest written document or letter (or documented conversation) that references this 2023 found bullet?
- Please share your thoughts on the propriety of a Secret Service agent not including a found bullet in your post-assassination report. Was evidence chain of custody part of your Secret Service training? Do you have a sense of the historic importance of what you are now revealing?
- “I did not want this piece of evidence to disappear.” So, what does Landis do? He drops this crucial piece of evidence on a gurney without telling anyone. I guess he must have missed all those Preservation of Evidence classes at the Secret Service academy.
- If Secret Service agents weren’t trained in the fundamentals of crime scene preservation, evidence gathering and reporting, weren’t they at least vetted for common sense?
- Why then would Landis remove evidence from a crime scene (the presidential limousine) and relocate it to a stretcher instead of handing it off to his superior or at the very least local authorities?
- Why didn’t he mark the bullet?
- Why didn’t he record his findings in a report?
- Did PTSD impede him from fulfilling his oath to support and defend democracy for decades?
- How could he avoid the Warren Commission Report and Arlen Specter’s “magic bullet” theory for decades?
- Did he state as late as 2010-2013 that he believed a lone gunman was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination?
- Did the trauma overwhelm him for six decades?
- The reason for why his total silence is not believable (or “understandable”) is because at the time Landis did what he said he did with that bullet, he had absolutely no knowledge or information about any of the details concerning the assassination. He had no idea who Oswald was at that time, and he had no idea if a conspiracy might be involved. He knew nothing at that point. And yet he tells NOBODY about finding and moving an important piece of evidence like a bullet?! Such dead silence by a member of the U.S. Secret Service (or anyone in law enforcement) in such a situation is completely beyond belief, not to mention totally irresponsible on Landis’ part. And, in my opinion, even if it had been days or weeks or months later that he had somehow come across a piece of new evidence connected with JFK’s death, it still would not be at all “perfectly understandable” that he would just keep completely silent about encountering such a piece of potentially vital evidence in the case of a murdered President.
What’s more, according to fellow follow-up car Secret Service agent Sam Kinney’s neighbor Gary Loucks[34] (reported publicly for the first time in 2013), Kinney admitted to Loucks in 1986 to finding an extra bullet and putting it on a stretcher, a story eerily like Landis claims a decade later. One wonders if Landis read the articles about Loucks and Kinney or saw the video[35]? Likewise, Parkland Hospital Nurse Phyllis Hall[36] came out in the same year, 2013, to state that she saw a mystery bullet at Parkland[37]. One also wonders if Landis saw the articles or the videos about her story. Interestingly, Hall’s 2013 story surfaced yet again in September 2023 to corroborate Landis tale[38].

Possible corroboration for Landis 2023 story (or something he may have viewed previously[39]) comes fromHSCA attorney Belford V. Lawson, in charge of the Secret Service area of the “investigation,” the author of a memo regarding an interview with Nathan Pool conducted on 1/10/77 and headlined “POOL’s CO-DISCOVERY OF THE ‘TOMLINSON’ BULLET.” In the memo, Pool mentions the fact that two Secret Service agents were by the elevator, one of which ” remained there throughout most or all of Pool’s stay”. Before we can catch our breath, a third Secret Service agent enters the picture; although all these men were in the immediate vicinity of the discovery of the bullet, one agent “was within 10 feet when Pool recognized the bullet”. According to Pool, the bullet was pointed, and he added that it “didn’t look like it had hit anything and didn’t look like it had been in anything”.

Lawson felt that further development of Pool’s testimony may reveal the following:

QUOTE: “A SECRET SERVICE AGENT WAS FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ELEVATOR TO PLANT A BULLET; MAY LEAD TO AN IDENTIFICATION OF THAT AGENT…”[40]

In addition, author Jim DiEugenio wrote the author:”During the last days of the public hearings of the House Select Committee, Congressman, now Senator Dodd, gave the most important revelation. He stood up or sat up and asked Professor Blakey to answer one question. And he said, Mr. Blakey, will you please explain to me about the bullet that was found in the President’s limousine that cannot be ballistically matched to the Oswald weapon? Congressman Dodd never received an answer to this day.”

Finally, in yet another story prevalent online that predates Landis 2023 bullet story, Captain James Young[41][42]story of a bullet — a spent, misshapen, but otherwise intact, bullet — that Young, a Navy doctor, said was found late at night, on the floor, in the back of Kennedy’s limousine. He inspected it himself. The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine. They came back with three pieces of bone, and the bullet. The skull fragments were reported — but not the bullet.

Writer Ed Curtin thoughtfully wonders if Paul Landis book is merely a “limited hangout.”[43] The man seen with Landis during several televised interviews and the author of the new Vanity Fair article, Cleveland-based attorney James Robenalt, helped Landis to “process his memories,” a strange choice of words, indeed.[44]

The more I investigate this whole thing, the more skeptical I become of Landis 2023 statements. Just as Jean Hill embellished her account in her book The Lady in Red, perhaps to sell books and make her account more dramatic, I believe such is the case here. And, just like Jean Hill, the “good news” is that the core of their story is true- Jean Hill was there and indicated a shot came from the knoll. Landis wrote in two reports that a shot came from the front, he verified their contents when the HSCA contacted him in early 1979 as they were writing the final report, and I want to believe his denouncement of the single bullet theory in 2016 (echoing Clint Hills own denouncement in the same year in his book Five Presidents) and his stating/demonstrating that the back of JFK’s head was missing (also in 2016, again echoing Clint Hill) are both true.

As for these 2023-vintage statements about the bullet- I don’t believe it. I wanted to at first, but it falls apart upon deeper scrutiny.

This whole thing almost reminds me of the Roscoe White story that broke out in August 1990: everyone was so excited as Ricky White made the media rounds. Oh, my Lord- there is a photo of his wife with Ruby! Wow- he was a Dallas police officer trainee. What?! He had the third backyard photo…

But then, upon further scrutiny, the main part of his story fell to pieces- his father was the grassy knoll shooter as “proven” by a diary that no longer existed. Beverly Oliver said she saw Roscoe White on the knoll (yeah, right); Gerry Patrick Hemming said he knew Roscoe (suuuure he did)…

Then Ricky disappeared and that was that.

Will Paul Landis likewise disappear and avoid the tough questions? We shall see.

PART TWO: THE BOOK ITSELF

Well, the book was due out October 10, 2023, yet my pre-ordered hardcover was delayed until the end of the month. Being impatient, I decided to get the readily available Kindle edition.[45] Having devoured the entire book in one day, I must say that I was disappointed, both for what Landis says and for what he does not say. Quite frankly, if it wasn’t for the massive advance hype, I think his book would have sunk without a trace with meager sales, to boot (when I originally posted about his upcoming book, very few people seemed to care until the huge media hype came along). In fact, judging by the early mixed reviews on Amazon, Landis should be lucky that he has garnered a lot of advance sales because word of mouth from this point on will not be favorable.

Comically, right from the start, the Acknowledgments section of the book mentions Clint Hill: “I appreciate your support for my book.” Yet, as we know, Hill came out against his book on NBC and, if that wasn’t enough, Landis was not invited to a get-together of all surviving Kennedy Detail Secret Service agents at the residence of Hill and his wife (and co-author) Lisa McCubbin Hill.[46]Ron Pontius, Jerry Blaine, Ken Giannoules, Tom Wells, and Rad Jones came to the Hill’s residence, as well as another mutual friend, former Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy, yet Landis (who was Hill’s friend for decades and participated in both The Kennedy Detail book and documentary) was not invited and not present.

From the Introduction, we learn that Landis was given the Josiah Thompson book Six Seconds in Dallas in 2014 and that he “actively avoided reading any books about the events of November 22, 1963,” although he does acknowledge reading the The Kennedy Detail to which, as already noted, he participated in both the book and documentary.

The bulk of the book will have little interest to all but the most ardent Kennedy fanatics and Secret Service buffs, but I will note some items along the way of getting to the more “meat and potato” points about the bullet and so forth.

From Chapter One we learn that fellow Kennedy agents Richard Johnsen (the future keeper of CE399) and David Grant (future co-advance agent with Win Lawson in Dallas and Clint Hill’s brother-in-law) were roommates of Landis during his Secret Service career.

From Chapter Two Landis notes the influence that fellow Ohio native Robert Foster had on his Secret Service career-Landis began his time in the agency in 1959, ending in 1964[47] (Foster would go on to be a member of the Kiddie Detail during the JFK years: the agents who looked after Caroline and John Jr.).

Chapter 3 mentions Landis’ study of the 700-page Secret Service manual (this is only of interest for those who like to criticize Colonel Fletcher Prouty’s claim that there was indeed a Secret Service manual. Landis mentions having to study it during his training).

Chapter 4 duly notes Landis time on the President Eisenhower grandchildren detail at Gettysburg, PA in 1960. Future JFK agents (and then-Ike White House Detail agents) Gerald Behn, Floyd Boring, Tom Wells, Stu Stout, Harry Gibbs, Sam Kinney, Bill Greer, Ernie Olsson, Ken Wiesman and John Campion are mentioned. Interestingly, Landis states that he is “proud” to have “planted the seed” for the Secret Service going on to use the AR-15 rifle, which became an official weapon of the agency. For his part, Landis became an official member of President Kennedy’s White House Detail within days of the inauguration: 1/23/61, to be exact.

In Chapter 5, after mentioning the Secret Service manual once again, Landis fondly notes his positive interaction with JFK and how the President knew his name and the names of the other agents on the detail.

Chapter 6 chronicles Landis’ time at Hyannis port as part of his 14-month time on the Kennedy Kiddie Detail along with fellow agents Tom Wells and Lynn Meredith. Landis, code name Debut, was the second youngest agent on the Kennedy Detail at 26, with fellow agent Ken Giannoules, also 26, beating him by a mere few months as the youngest one. The 12/19/61 Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. stroke is noted, as is a cute story about how Landis brought Caroline and her pony Macaroni into the actual Oval Office itself, much to JFK’s bemusement.

Chapters 7-9 reminds one heavily of Clint Hill’s first book Mrs. Kennedy & Me, as Landis chronicles his time as a member of the First Lady Detail assisting Clint Hill in Ravello, Italy (along with fellow agents Toby Chandler and Paul Rundle), during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 (Landis formally joined the First Lady Detail during this time), the loss of Patrick Kennedy in August 1963, and Jackie Kennedy’s trip to Greece and Morocco in October 1963. Upon their return to Washington, D.C., Landis playfully wore a fez- while still sitting on the plane, President Kennedy (after greeting Jackie) shook his head from side to side and told Landis “Off with the fez, Mr. Landis.”

Chapter Ten, titled “Texas,” mentions the October weekend trip Jackie made to Camp David, along with Clint Hill, the Kiddie Detail, Caroline, John Junior and the children’s nanny Maude Shaw. Interestingly, as with Hill’s four books and Blaine’s book The Kennedy Detail, Landis makes no mention whatsoever of the death of Secret Service agent Tom Shipman at Camp David on 10/14/63.[48] Landis mentions that the agents received a briefing about the upcoming Texas trip on 11/20/63 and that Dallas was known as the “City of Hate,” as Dallas was known for the attack on UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, the foul JFK as traitor notion, and the idiotic idea that the UN was a communist front. As Landis notes, there was “reason to be on alert.”

After mentioning the trips to San Antonio and Houston (mentioning fellow agents Emory Roberts, Jack Ready, Don Lawton, William McIntire, Glen Bennett, Jim Goodenough, Andy Berger and “Muggsy” O’Leary), the Fort Worth trip of 11/21-11/22/63 is briefly chronicled. The infamous drinking incident involving nine agents, four of which rode on the follow-up car (Hill, Ready, Bennett and Landis himself), which occurred at both the Fort Worth Press Club and The Cellar is conveniently glossed over, as Landis denies that anyone was either drunk or misbehaving, although he does concede that he stayed until the early morning hours and got no sleep whatsoever. The bubble top decision is mentioned, yet no one is specifically mentioned as being the culprit for leaving the top off in Dallas (as I have noted in my books, Secret Service agent Sam Kinney was adamant to me on three occasions that he-Sam-was solely responsible for the top’s removal and that JFK had nothing to do with it).[49]

Secret Service agent Bill Duncan is noted as the advance agent for Fort Worth, while Winston Lawson is noted as being the lead advance agent for Dallas. Fellow agent Larry Newman told me that he was concerned that Kennedy aides Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell rode in the follow-up car, as he did not think they belonged there[50], and Paul Landis voices the same concern, even noting that they were unexpected and uninvited guests.

Interestingly, Landis remembered agent Don Lawton throwing up his arms “as if in frustration” at Love Field as the motorcade started to move out (something this reviewer noted over thirty years ago and popularized in his books, online blogs, conference presentations and television appearances[51]). Landis thought it was because of uninvited guests Powers and O’Donnell, yet he notes that “I have since read that he was left behind to help secure the area for our departure later that afternoon.” However, Landis states that “I personally find this difficult to believe, because Love Field was already secured for our arrival. We were already short of agents and needed all of the on-site coverage we could get.” As with the omission of any word about agent Thomas Shipman’s death, Landis makes no mention of agent Henry Rybka, the other agent (along with Don Lawton) recalled and left behind and Love Field.[52]

Landis, after duly noting fellow follow-up car agents Sam Kinney (the driver), Emory Roberts, George Hickey (manning the AR-15), Clint Hill, Tim McIntire, Jack Ready, Glen Bennett and himself, also mentions that agent Glen Bennett was “our protective research agent,” yet, officially, he was merely an extra agent added to the somewhat depleted detail of agents. That said, Landis’ comment corroborates both Clint Hill’s statement in his book and my own research that agent Bennett was there as an unofficial covert monitor of threats to Kennedy’s life and the true nature of his reason for riding in the follow-up car was hidden for decades after the assassination.[53]

Landis notes that the Dallas motorcade was ten miles long (in contrast, the Tampa, Florida motorcade of 11/18/63, which entailed agents on the rear of the limo and infinitely better overall security, was a whopping 28 miles long[54]). Landis rightly notes that Clint Hill got on the rear of the presidential limousine several times and that the motorcade, travelling at “30-35 mph” before they got to Main Street, had driver Sam Kinney hugging the rear bumper of JFK’s limo, maintaining a 3-5 foot distance between the cars the whole time (although there would be a markedly wider distance between the two cars on Elm Street when the assassination began). Landis notes that they were barely moving at a snail’s pace around the sharp, almost hairpin turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street.

When the assassination started, Landis states that “everything happened so fast” and that the shooting occurred within “5-6 seconds.” Landis does state that the second shot “sounded louder than the first one” and that it “had a different feeling, a different reverberation.” From Landis’ description of the 3 shots, he says he heard, it sounds like there were actually more than three shots, for he states that the second one occurred as “Hill was starting to pull himself up onto the limo” and that the third shot was the head shot! Landis states that the head wound was “massive”, yet does not state exactly where it was, unlike his 2016 Sixth Floor Museum oral history, in which he demonstrates that it was located at the “right rear” of the head.[55]

Disappointingly, perhaps influenced by his participation in The Kennedy Detail, Landis, with no first-hand knowledge (he admits that this was his first motorcade), states that the agents were not on the rear of the limo because JFK did not want them there, a notion the author has adamantly debunked.[56] Landis does admit that Shift Leader Emory Roberts instructed the agents to cover Vice President LBJ as soon as the follow-up car stopped at Parkland Hospital, quite a switch in allegiance from Kennedy to Johnson.

Chapter 11, titled “Parkland”, begins with Landis noticing “a crack in the windshield” of the presidential limousine and further adding that Texas Governor John Connally was “probably (hit) by the second bullet”; that he “saw two brass bullet fragments sitting in a pool of bright red blood” on the rear limousine seat; and that he also “saw a bullet on top of the tufted black leather cushioning” and that it was “a completely intact bullet,” yet he does not state the obvious contradictions these observations would have to the official government Warren Commission single bullet theory, an absolutely essential component to having Lee Harvey Oswald acting as the sole shooter. In fact, the official photo of CE399, the magic bullet, is shown with the caption that this was “the bullet that Special Agent Paul Landis found in the limousine”!

Landis wonders where the agents were when he discovered the intact bullet, yet Sam Kinney (one of the ones he mentions as missing) was indeed still there, as many photos and films prove.[57] Landis claims he actually held the bullet in his hand, placed it in his suit pocket, and (not long afterward) placed it on the examination table next to JFK’s left shoe, none of which he ever stated before when (as noted in part one) he was interviewed in 1983, 1988 or 2010.

Landis goes on to mention that Texas law forbids the president’s body from leaving Texas, yet, as we know, the agents forcibly removed JFK’s body at gunpoint on their way to Love Field and Air Force One. Landis also notes fellow agent Glen Bennett taking notes aboard Air Force One. Interestingly, Landis also states that agent Roy Kellerman, nominally in charge of the Texas trip, persisted and insisted that Landis watch the swearing in ceremony, fodder for those who believe something happened to Kennedy’s body while the ceremony was taking place.

Chapter 12 has a few items of interest. After noting that roommate and fellow agent David Grant (Hill’s brother-in-law and advance agent for the Trade Mart) stayed in Dallas to assist the police in their investigation, he notes that some of the agents thought that LBJ had something to do with the assassination! Also of interest: Landis states that, not only were all the agents in Dallas told to write reports, but they were all told to watch the Zapruder film: “all agents were required to view the film and sign off that they had seen it. It was mandatory.” Landis refused to do so and heard nothing more about it.

Remarkably, Landis claims to have purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano like Oswald’s from American Rifleman magazine back in March 1958 and that he brought his rifle to the White House to show his fellow agents on the morning of 11/25/63, Kennedy’s funeral. Of note, Landis does not mention Gerald Blaine’s alleged “meeting” from this same morning wherein the agents supposedly talked of suppressing the “fact” that Kennedy told them to stay off the limo so as not to blame the president.[58]

Chapter 13 takes note of Landis’ PTSD and how he would play the assassination over and over in his mind which led to his eventually leaving the Secret Service on 8/15/64, three days after his 29^th birthday.

The Epilogue has Landis finally admitting that he read the Warren Report, albeit in 2018. Surprisingly, Landis admits that he was indeed contacted by the HSCA in 1979, yet he omits what he conveyed: that he stands behind his two reports! In fact, perhaps the most glaring omission of all: Landis does not mention that he stated in BOTH of his reports that a shot came from the front! I find these omissions very troubling, to put it mildly. Landis ‘forgets’ to mention the fact that he wrote something in TWO reports that goes against official history AND he doesn’t bother to mention the bullet he allegedly found: bizarre and suspicious.

Quite frankly, I find the entire book a real “bait and switch” scenario: hype the book about the bullet Landis found while it racks up best-selling sales in pre-order, only to deliver a pamphlet’s worth of interesting and new information. And, as noted above, there are glaring omissions and the whole bullet business leaves one wondering if this was added to sell books (as he wrote nothing about it in 1963 or said nothing about it in 1983, 1988 or 2010 when given the chance) and, perplexingly, Landis does not go into any detail about the significance of this alleged find and how it debunks official history (if true). Seasoned researchers know about the significance of a whole bullet found where it was in Landis’ scenario, but I can imagine the public being quite confused (and totally in the dark about Landis’ two reports that stated a shot came from the front, as well as his demonstration of a right rear head wound in 2016).

But, hey- Landis has a runaway best-seller (in advance sales) for his children and grandchildren to enjoy…

Journalist Jeff Morley and attorney Larry Schnapf interview Landis about this new controversy and his book. Watch/download the interview here.

[1] Perhaps JFK era agent is more appropriate, as Landis, like fellow Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, was actually a First Lady Agent, protecting the life of Jacqueline Kennedy.

[2] The Final Witness: A Kennedy Secret Service Agent Breaks His Silence After Sixty Years: Landis, Paul: 9781641609449: Amazon.com: Books

[3] Jackie Kennedy’s ex-Secret Service agent makes new claim about the JFK assassination – YouTube

[4] Former Secret Service agent describes JFK assassination in new detail – YouTube

[5] Ex-Secret Service agent reveals new JFK assassination detail – BBC News

[6] JFK Secret Service Agent Refutes Magic Bullet Assassination Theory (tmz.com)

[7] A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory | Vanity Fair

[8] J.F.K. Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence and Raises New Questions – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[9] Agent Paul Landis Makes Startling Claim About JFK Assassination in New Book (people.com)

[10] 18 H 687. See also Could the Secret Service Have Saved J.F.K.? | Vanity Fair

[11] 18 H 758-759; 18 H 751-757

[12] HSCA REPORT, pages 89 and 606

[13] The Kennedy Detail by Gerald Blaine (2010), page 353

[14] Author of the books Mrs. Kennedy & Me (2012), Five Days in November (2013), Five Presidents (2016), and My Travels with Mrs. Kennedy (2022). In addition, Hill wrote the Foreword and contributed significantly to the Gerald Blaine book The Kennedy Detail (2010)

[15] Tina Towner: My Story as the Youngest Photographer at the Kennedy Assassination (2012)

[16] The Coshocton (Ohio) Tribune, 11/20/83; Greenfield (Ohio) Daily Times, 11/22/83

[17] The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, 11/20/88

[18] Could the Secret Service Have Saved J.F.K.? | Vanity Fair

[19] Five Presidents by Clint Hill (2016), page 178

[20] 18 H 740-745

[21] 2 H 141

[22] The Kennedy Detail, page 217

[23] Mrs. Kennedy & Me, page 291

[24] Five Days in November, page 139

[25] Five Presidents, page 155

[26] Paul Landis on location of JFK head wound: blockbuster – YouTube

[27] Although, importantly, not in either of his 1963 reports

[28] The Coshocton (Ohio) Tribune, 11/20/83; Greenfield (Ohio) Daily Times, 11/22/83

[29] The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, 11/20/88

[30] The Kennedy Detail, page 225

[31] Paul Landis – no mention of bullets or fragments in 2016 interview plus bad memory – YouTube

[32] Paul Landis – fast shots that sounded different but fails to mention frontal shots from HIS reports – YouTube

[33] Special thanks to researcher K.K. Lane for his help with this specific list of questions.

[34] Loucks died on 2/23/23: Gary Lee Loucks (1946-2023) – Find a Grave Memorial

[35] JFK Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney’s neighbor’s (Gary Loucks) revelations – YouTube

[36] Hall died on 4/18/23: Obituary | Phyllis J. Hall of Irving, Texas | Donnelly’s Colonial Funeral Home (donnellyscolonial.com)

[37] Nurse claims JFK had another bullet lodged in body after assassination – New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)

[38] JFK assassination nurse says she SAW the ‘pristine bullet’ Secret Service agent Paul Landis now claims he retrieved from limo and placed on stretcher – upending the ‘magic bullet’ theory | Daily Mail Online

[39] As referenced in my books and fairly prevalent online.

[40] Pool Nathan 01.pdf (archive.org)

[41] White House Physician, Autopsy Eyewitness, questions President Ford about Missing Bullet – ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES (aarclibrary.org)

[42] Navy Doctor: Bullet Found in JFK’s Limousine, and Never Reported – WhoWhatWhy

[43] Another Magical JFK Assassination Pseudo-Debate and Limited Hangout | Dissident Voice

[44] James Robenalt – Wikipedia

[45] With this in mind, all references are to the Kindle edition.

[46] Clint Hill Facebook 9/24/23. Hill noted: “There were messages from former USSS director Lew Merletti and Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his wife Evan Ryan, the granddaughter of James J. Rowley, my first boss at the White House.”

[47] The same time span as agent Gerald Blaine.

[48] See the reviewer’s books Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure to Protect President Kennedy, The Not-So-Secret Service, Who’s Who in the Secret Service and Honest Answers About the Murder of President John F. Kennedy. See also: THE REAL DEATH OF A SECRET SERVICE AGENT THE MONTH BEFORE THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION 10/14/1963 – YouTube

[49] The JFK bubble top: Sam Kinney’s decision + all the times it was used (1/3 of all motorcades) – YouTube

[50] Interview with Larry Newman.

[51] JFK assassination Secret Service documentary: the Kennedy agents 2016 – YouTube

[52] The Secret Service stand down on the day of the JFK assassination EXPLAINED: one hour version – YouTube

[53] Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail (kennedysandking.com)

[54] Excellent security for President Kennedy 11/18/63 Tampa and Miami, Florida – YouTube See also EXCELLENT security for JFK in Tampa, FL on 11/18/63 | Vince Palamara

[55] Paul Landis on location of JFK head wound: blockbuster – YouTube

[56] JFK’s agents deny that President Kennedy ordered them off the limo – YouTube

[57] For example, see the 16-minute mark of: The Last Two Days – Highest Quality Version (JFK Assassination) – YouTube

[58] Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail (kennedysandking.com)
October 31, 2023
Former People by James Norwood

James Norwood was a professor at the University of Minnesota for 26 years. Among the classes he taught was a semester course in the John F. Kennedy assassination. He has written for this web site previously. (Click here for one example) He has now published a book which is entitled Former People.

As Norwood immediately explains, that rubric was used in conjunction with former members of the Russian aristocracy. Many of whom were displaced after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. He then uses other examples from Russian history like the Mensheviks who were also retired to what Trotsky called the “dustbin of history.”

In relation to his current book, Norwood is going to use that term to describe what happened to Nikita Khrushchev, President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. It’s a unique concept, at least I cannot think of a predecessor in the field. But to point out one useful strophe: the cemetery where Khrushchev was buried was close for renovation because it had too many people visiting after his burial. (pp. 2-3).

In his discussion of Khrushchev Norwood makes the case that he ended up opposing what Josef Stalin had done since he had a role in some of those crimes, for example, he was complicit in the Great Purges of the thirties. (p. 7) But as most know Khrushchev fought well in World War II, particularly during the epochal battle at Stalingrad. (Norwood points out that, although he took credit for it, Khrushchev was not part of the planning for the Russian offensive there.)

Having learned the Machiavellian tactics of Stalin’s court, Khrushchev emerged triumphant during the struggle for succession after the tyrant’s death. Yet, he was quite inexperienced in the art of diplomacy and statecraft on the world stage. As the British prime minister Harold Macmillan wrote in his diary:

How can this fat, vulgar man, with this pig eyes and his ceaseless flow of talk, really be the head—the aspirant Tsar—of all these millions of people in this cast country? (p. 10)

Yet he was. Norwood hallmarks the strikingly important secret speech of 1956. This was Khrushchev’s repudiation of the terror and purges of Stalin. (p. 40) This speech was entitled, “On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences.” Khrushchev said, “Stalin had committed criminal violations of the law that would have been punished in any country—except for countries not governed by law at all.” (ibid) He then added that Stalin’s rule was much closer to that of the Russian tsars than the Bolshevik revolutionaries. He also pointed out Stalin’s disastrous leadership at the beginning of the German invasion in World War II. As Khrushchev later wrote, the delegates at the Communist Party Congress were thunderstruck especially since Stalin had taken these actions against both Old Bolsheviks and Young Communists.

Yet, in that same year, Khrushchev ordered the crushing of Hungarian Spring. Which resulted in tens of thousands of casualties on both sides, and hundreds of thousands of refugees who fled the country. (p. 43) The author makes the case that Khrushchev was probably influenced by the Soviet ambassador to Hungary Yuri Andropov, who would later run the KGB for 15 years and briefly reign as General Secretary. For whatever reason Khrushchev also banned the book Doctor Zhivago, although he later admitted this had been a mistake. It resulted in a great propaganda triumph for the CIA.

In dealing with Kennedy, Norwood describes his many childhood ailments, his heroism in the Navy during the famous PT-109 incident, and the death of his older brother Joe in an air explosion during World War II. (pp. 10-13) He briefly deals with both his political career–elected three times to the House, and twice to the senate—and his literary vocation, the penning of Why England Slept and Profiles in Courage. He points out for praise Senator Kennedy’s 1954 speech warning about further American support of the French war in Vietnam. But, curiously, he does not mention the famous 1957 Algeria speech which literally rocked the political and journalistic establishment. Alistair Cooke, the British journalist, noted that this anti-colonial speech–and the attention the Republicans had given it–had made Kennedy the frontrunner for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. (Richard Mahoney, JFK: Ordeal in Africa, p. 29)

Norwood builds his early narrative structure around two events: the Missile Crisis and Kennedy’s American University Peace Speech. Norwood considers the Russian leader’s decision to place missiles, bombers and 45,000 men in Cuba a result of his aforementioned lack of diplomatic sophistication and serious misjudgment of Kennedy. Norwood also thinks it was part of Russian vozhdism or one person rule. Khrushchev had put the question to the Kremlin leaders. There were no serious objections at this time, but there were would be many later recriminations. (Norwood, p. 23) As the author notes, it should have been clear to Khrushchev that the U 2 overflights would eventually pick up the installations, especially since the troops on the island had not practiced consistent camouflage and disguise techniques. A fact that enraged the Russian leader when he found out about it. The overflights did discover the installations on October 14^th. Kennedy had learned from the Bay of Pigs and now changed the command style. It was not just the Pentagon, CIA and NSC. Kennedy felt that had failed him. So this was expanded into something called the Ex Comm which now included Bobby Kennedy and Ted Sorenson.

Kennedy had been a great admirer of Tuchman classic The Guns of August. Kennedys was determined that no such book could be written about the Missile Crisis, one depicting a march to folly and destruction out of stupidity and impulsiveness. (p. 32) In fact, journalist Jordan Michael Smith wrote that “quite possibly Kennedy’s careful reading of the book helped prevent a nuclear war.” (p. 32)

If this is so Kennedy had to pretty much bypass his Joint Chiefs of Staff. Who considered the blockade route much too soft and giving way to much lenience to a provocation like this. To them, it was a time for aggression and attack. Although Norwood has Marine General Shoup tell Kennedy that he was in a pretty bad fix, it was actually Curtis Lemay who said it. (Ernest May and Philip Zelikow, The Kennedy Tapes, p. 182)

Once the deployment was discovered, and the blockade option was approved by Kennedy, Khrushchev was in a precarious situation. One which invited a terrible escalation by either side which could result in atomic war. The only realistic option the Russians had was to negotiate out a settlement. But the Russian ships stopping at the blockade line was not a victory as Dean Rusk exclaimed it was. Because it was later discovered that all the ICBM’s and tactical weapons—162 missiles in all– had been landed on the island before the blockade was secure. (The Armageddon Letters, by James Blight and Janet Lang, p. 257) So the Russians knew that their tactical weapons would incinerate any invading armada crossing the Caribbean. They also knew that with the armada burning at sea, the combination of ICBMS, bombers and submarines could deliver a formidable first strike. The Russian has achieved his goal of placing a hedgehog on Kennedy’s breakfast plate. (Norwood, p. 27) But General Thomas Power, commander of SAC, took it upon himself to raise the DEFCON alert from level 3 to 2. Which was one step short of war. (Norwood, p. 29). And there were three events which almost caused a shooting war to break out: the downing of a U2 over Cuba by Castro, another U 2 that flew off course and over Soviet air space where MIGS scrambled to intercept, but other planes came to the rescue in time. The last was when American surface ships were hurling grenades and depth charges at a nuclear tipped submarine off the coast of Cuba. With all the explosions, the Russians did not know if a war was going on but luckily the commander directed the sub to surface and find out before firing. (Norwood p. 30)

Having achieved what was for all intents and purposes a (lucky) standoff, the two sides now began to formulate negotiation positions. Adlai Stevenson reputedly brought up the idea of trading the UN Turkish and Italian missiles for the Russian missiles inside of Cuba. Robert Kennedy was determined to go around the Ex Comm through Soviet contacts with diplomat Georgi Bolskakov, and later with the Russian ambassador Anatoli Dobyrnin. And this is where the promise not to invade Cuba came into play.

The so-called peaceful outcome was not welcome to the hawks on both sides. The Pentagon concluded that Kennedy had blown a perfect chance to get rid of Castro. The Kremlin felt that Khrushchev had luckily dodged a bullet by enacting a hare-brained scheme. Norwood insinuates that the result of that crisis echoed through the next two years, eventually deposing them both.

Making this even more unfortunate was the mutual attempt at détente by both men e.g., the limited test ban treaty, the direct hot line. This was capped by Kennedy’s Peace Speech, which—like Columbia professor Jeff Sachs– the author spends some time explicating. (pp. 46-52). As a result, Norwood writes, “For a brief moment in history, between June and November of 1963, there was a genuine opening for rapprochement.” (p. 52)

Khrushchev wept when he heard the news of Kennedy’s death. He suspected American right-wingers had murdered the president in order to sink their attempt at a US-Soviet détente. (pp. 66-67). In some ways, Kennedy’s murder set the stage for Khrushchev’ own removal, since none of the tangible things the two men were working on were now going to be enacted. Therefore, the conservatives in the Politburo set up a plot to get rid of a leader who was actually contemplating with Kennedy a complete demobilization. (p. 75). Norwood argues, with some justification, that the USSR changed for the worse after this removal. A period of reform had now come to the end, economic stagnation ensued plus the formal imposition of the Brezhnev Doctrine. (p. 64). The true circumstances of Kennedy’s murder were covered up, and his achievements went largely unnoted in history textbooks. As far as Khrushchev went, the new Russian hierarchy began to write him out of history. (p. 66)

The last part of the book deals with the formal methods used to conceal the true circumstances of Kennedy’s death and a probing of the mystery of Oswald. First, he deals with how the MSM, and people like Walter Cronkite, placed a stamp on the three-bullet scenario right out of the gate. Like many before him, including the recently discussed Bart Kamp, Norwood squarely places the official blame for the JFK cover up on J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. He spends more than a few pages on how eager Hoover was to close the case with Oswald as the lone gunman. (p. 92ff). But he also exposes how people inside the FBI, like William Sullivan and Laurence Keenan, and Hoover himself, understood just how flawed the FBI inquiry really was. For instance, Hoover once said about the Oswald case, “If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our whole political system could be disrupted.” (Norwood, p. 101) But since the Warren Commission was so overwhelmingly reliant on the Bureau it more or less had to go along with Hoover’s very quickly drawn official conclusions.

Norwood ends with Oswald. He spends several pages on a real enigma about the man: How and where did Oswald learn to speak good Russian. He lists several witnesses who came to this conclusion about his fluency: Natalie Ray, Peter Gregory, George Bouhe, Elena Hall Rosaleen Quinn. The last is quite interesting since she conversed with Oswald in Russian before he left for the Soviet Union. (pp. 121-23). But then in Russia, many people have said that Oswald feigned not being able to speak the language. Norwood concludes this was part of his ruse as a fake defector since if he advertised that he could speak Russian the authorities would realize he was sent there by the Navy or CIA to be a spy. I would beg to disagree with Norwood’s portrayal of Ernst TItovets’ take on Oswald. (pp. 138-39) First, Ernst really was not a Johnny Come Lately to the case, as he was in the 1993 PBS special Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? And when I encountered the man in 2014 at the AARC Conference in Maryland, TItovets told me that when he met Oswald, he spoke good Russian.

Norwood is an advocate of the John Armstrong theorem of there being two Oswalds from an early age. He chalks up the long incubating experiment in doubles to CIA official Frank Wisner who used many people on the displaced persons list from World War !! as part of covert operations across Europe. And he notes that Robert Kennedy assistant William Vanden Heuvel on December 4, 1963 noted that “files of the IRC (International Rescue Commission) contain information pertaining to Oswald.” (p. 155) In an appendix, the author depicts Oswald’s Certificate of Enlistment for the Marines. He notes that the original name on the card was Harvey Lee Oswald, corrected to Lee Harvey Oswald. (p. 197). Another appendix lists a useful timeline in milestones on the JFK case beginning with Oswald’s defection and concluding with Oliver Stone’s two recent documentaries on the case, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed.

In sum, Norwood’s book is unique in concept, mercifully concise, and adroitly argued. All the more impressive since it is his first book on the case.

October 23, 2023
Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture by Bart Kamp

Bart Kamp’s book is the second to be dedicated to the phenomenon of the Prayer Man figure. The first was by Stan Dane in 2015. Dane’s book was called Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and Into the Light. It had an introduction by Greg Parker. The three personages thus named are not involved by happenstance. They are all members of the Reopen Kennedy Case forum (ROKC). That group has been one of the strongest associations for advocating that Prayer Man is Oswald.

Bart Kamp is not just a member in good standing of that forum. He is also a good friend of the man who many consider the foremost archival researcher of this era, Malcolm Blunt of England. Bart has also done fine work in recovering and archiving the materials held by the late Harrison Livingstone, a significant contribution which I do not think anyone else would have done. (Click here for that)

One of the things that Kamp does in his book is to chronicle the history of the Prayer Man (PM) figure. To summarize, PM is not the same as figure that many thought to be Oswald staring out in the Altgens 6 photograph with his right shoulder partly hidden by the frame of the Texas School Book Depository doorway. That turned out to be Billy Lovelady. The PM person is standing back in that foyer area with his hands close together, which is why he was dubbed Prayer Man.

As Kamp chronicles, the suspicion about Prayer Man being Oswald was not first noted by researcher Sean Murphy, who is usually given credit for the discovery. As the book points out, there was a circle of Kennedy researchers who were looking into the Altgens 6 figure. This included photographic analyst Richard E. Sprague, writer Harold Weisberg and the young prodigy Howard Roffman. (Kamp, p 24).

The fourth member of this correspondence circle ended up being most important in this aspect. And yet today he is just about unknown in the literature. His name was Richard Bernabei, a professor at Queen’s University in Ontario. The four needed more angles on the people in the doorway and so Sprague got hold of a copy of the film originally made by Dave Wiegman, an NBC photographer who was in one of the camera cars in the motorcade. Bernabei, a skilled sketch artist, was the first to really discern the PM figure and be able to illustrate his observations with distinction. He called the figure “Man in the Shadow”. Kamp is to be congratulated for giving Bernabei—who died in 1979– the recognition he belatedly deserved.

For decades Bernabei’s writings and sketches lay like lost gems in a treasure chest at the bottom of the sea. In reality they were at Queen’s University archive. But they were bereft because the subject did not really resurface until the new millennium and the online revolution. Kamp centers this first revival in the years 2005-07 with online commentators and acquaintances Charles Wallace, Sean Murphy and Chris Davidson, the last is an authority on the films and photos. (Kamp, p. 26). The rubric Prayer Man did not get applied until 2010 by Murphy on the JFK Lancer Forum. But most of those postings have been lost since that forum was hacked. But now the Wiegman film was supplemented by film from James Darnell who rode in camera car 3.

It was at the Education Forum that a long and fascinating debate was sprung open, initially by Bill Kelly. But Murphy then entered it and this began a fascinating public debate over whether or not PM was Oswald. Murphy resigned from the field at the 50^th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But the debate he spawned continued with other followers. ROKC has taken the lead in this debate. But as the author notes, WEBS forum and the Forum Notion also have featured many postings on the subject. As Kamp writes, the Dane book was then the first to appear on the subject in 2015.

No one has been able to analyze the original films taken by Wiegman and Darnell. They are the property of NBC. And for whatever reason, NBC is not cooperating by letting anyone get access to them. (Kamp. P. 29)

Kamp begins the analysis by questioning whether or not motorcycle policeman Marrion Baker did directly go up the front stairs to the depository as many have postulated. Under analysis, Baker appears to walk past the steps and past supervisor Roy Truly.( p. 36). I will not go into that entire discussion at this point. I will just say it leads to a questioning of whether or not the second floor lunchroom episode actually happened. That, of course is the scene where Baker stuck a gun in Oswald’s stomach as he was (or was not) holding a Coke. Truly then advised Baker that Oswald was an employee, and they let him walk away.

For those who are not familiar with that controversy, please read about it here. Suffice it to say that Bart Kamp brought up many interesting details that do bring this alleged incident into doubt. Because after reading that link, one has to wonder: Did Baker actually stop another man on the third or fourth floor, as he mentioned in his first day affidavit? And if they did not sight Oswald in the second-floor encounter, then where was Oswald really?

The last issue leads to two pieces of evidence that Kamp was much responsible for both surfacing and popularizing. These are notes by both FBI agent Jim Hosty and DPD Captain Will Fritz. Hosty, and especially Fritz, were involved in the questioning of Oswald while he was in detention being held by the police. The first notes by Hosty say that Oswald went to lunch at noon. He then went to the second floor to get a Coke. He then returned to the first floor to eat. He then went outside to watch the motorcade. (p. 84) These are quite important, and we owe it to Blunt and Kamp for actually finding these notes. This set of notes had been gifted to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) by Hosty in 1997. The set was not discovered by Kamp until over two decades later.

A few months after Hosty had donated his revealing notes, another set of notes–this time by Fritz–were anonymously donated to the ARRB. It said about Oswald that he was “Out with Bill Shelley, in front.” As the author adroitly asks: How did Oswald know Shelley was there in the first place?

If these two pieces of evidence had been in the record at the start, they would have given Oswald an even stronger alibi then he already had. That alibi was originally supplied of course by Victoria Adams, Sandy Styles and Dorothy Garner. Although Adams was the only one who made it into the Warren Report. These were the three secretaries on the fourth floor at the time of the shooting. As the book notes, using the material in Barry Ernest’s book, when combined, they produced powerful evidence that Oswald was not on the 6^th floor at the time of the shooting. (See Barry’s book The Girl on the Stairs, and Oliver Stone’s documentary, JFK Revisited)

On the back of this evidence the author first makes his case for Prayer Man being Oswald. He does this largely by a process of elimination. He goes through the entire building floor by floor naming all the people in the edifice that we know about, and using much of their testimony. He then states that from the best renditions we have of the Darnell and Wiegman films, PM was a white Caucasian. If one throws out all the people who we know were not on that exterior foyer, plus females, African Americans, and males of color, this reduces the possibilities about the Bernabei figure quite drastically. For Kamp, its Oswald. (p. 86)

There is a second major theorem in the book. As mentioned earlier, this deals with the second floor soda machine encounter. Which cyclist Marrion Baker did not mention in his first day affidavit. This reviewer dealt with this paradox in the book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. It is stunning to behold since what Baker mentioned was not anything like the incident described by the Commission. (DiEugenio, pp. 217-18) At that time Baker mentioned going up the stairs with Truly and upon reaching the third or fourth floor he saw someone walking away from the stairway. Truly said he worked there, so Baker let him go. There is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window of the lunch room. There is nothing about his holding a Coke. They were not even in a room.

I won’t go into all the details, but the author fingers people like policeman Marvin Johnson for changing Baker’s first day affidavit and saying that Baker saw Oswald in a line up, which Baker denied. (Kamp pp. 107-08) He also uses Geneva Hine to impeach the testimony of Mrs. Robert Reid about Oswald being on the second floor right after the assassination with a Coke in his hands. Hine did not leave the building and was stationed in close proximity to where Reid said she saw Oswald right after the assassination. Hine never saw Oswald or Reid from 12: 25- 12: 35. In fact, she saw Reid return after the shooting in a group. The fact that Reid was Truly’s secretary may have had an influence on all this. (Kamp, pp. 111-14)

What the writer is saying is rather radical, but he has evidence to support it. It is this: the second-floor lunch meeting between Baker, Truly and Oswald was invented–probably between FBI agent Nat Pinkston and Truly—in order to deprive Oswald of a sure-fire alibi.

A large part of the second part of the book deals with a micro analysis of the interrogation sessions of Oswald by the DPD, along with the Secret Service and FBI in attendance. This is probably the most complete, extensive and detailed examination of that process in the literature. In fact, Kamp actually finds mini-interrogations by other persons that are not usually included in usual listings of the sessions.

But this whole second part of the book is also integrated with evidentiary examination of points, for example the DPD fingerprint and palm print exam and the paraffin test. About the latter Kamp says it was the first time DPD ever did one on the suspect’s cheek, and it was on the orders of Fritz. (p. 295). The results were not what the DPD wanted. When the FBI got the weapon, they found no prints of value on it. And since Sebastian LaTona was the foremost expert in the country, his testing carried much more weight than Lt. Day at the DPD. (Kamp, pp. 289-91) The problem was by sending the weapon back to Dallas and Day miraculously finding a palm print that somehow LaTona, with all his new and better technology and decades of skill, could not find.

I don’t even want to go into the so-called trigger guard prints which involved PBS, producer Mike Sullivan’s Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? program and the allegedly long-lost Rusty Livingstone fingerprints. That has turned out to be a first class imbroglio that was deciphered first by Pat Speer and followed up on by Johnny Cairns. For Speer’s long detailed destruction of Sullivan, which may make you a little sick, click here.

As for the paraffin tests they were advertised as being positive on the hands and cheek, (p. 296) But, as we know, this was not accurate. At least for the cheek. In other words, due to Oswald’s denials, the unreliability of alleged eyewitness Howard Brennan (pgs. 298-303), and the failure of the two chemical tests, what was the DPD case on the night of the assassination?

What Kamp says turned the case around, and which J. Edgar Hoover took credit for, was the discovery of the Klein’s order for the alleged rifle used in the assassination from Chicago, with a coupon from a man named Hidell in Dallas/ Fort Worth. (p. 405). In fact, up to that time Hoover wrote, if John Abt—Oswald’s requested lawyer from New York had arrived–the case the DPD had would have been rocked back on its heels.

But here is what I will close the review with to show how layered in irony the book is. Because a fourth theorem of the book is this: The Dallas Police really did not have the Selective Service card with the Hidell alias on it the first day. (See the testimony on pp. 334-339) Obviously this leads to the question: was the Hidell card created after the fact? That is an answer that cannot be firmly replied to yet. But at least Bart Kamp brings up the question.

All in all, this is a credible effort which forges some new ground and replows some old ground in a new way. The matters Kamp examines go literally to the heart of the basics of the JFK case. If his theorems are true, there is no case to answer.

NBC could decide that.

October 19, 2023
Indexing the Garrison Folders
I’ll be the first to admit that I only had a passing knowledge of the scope of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s investigation into the JFK assassination through its New Orleans aspect. His book On the Trail of the Assassins was the very first book I owned on the subject. The story of that book is also told in Oliver Stone’s 1991 feature film JFK. The book and film depict the only case of a prosecutor placing on trial a suspect for conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.

As my interest grew in the topic, so did my awareness of the controversy that continued to orbit the legacy of Garrison’s investigation. Some of these included the lack of avenues of inquiry into Carlos Marcello / New Orleans mob, perceived targeting of homosexuals in New Orleans, using sodium pentothal in interrogations, infiltrations to sabotage the investigation to name a few. It was thanks to the works of Joan Mellen (A Farewell to Justice) Jim DiEugenio (Destiny Betrayed, second edition), Bill Davy (Let Justice be Done) and Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much) that I began to scratch the surface of the intrigue in New Orleans – before and after the JFK assassination. These books served as ways to excavate value and separate the wheat from the chaff. Something that had not been done prior in the critical community.

In February 2022, I emailed Len Osanic in a reply to a conversation he had on his podcast, Black Op Radio with researcher Paul Bleau. Up until that point I was already aware of the fine work Paul had been putting out around the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Hearing him refer to how much of his source information came from the folders of Jim Garrison, I reached out to Len to ask for access to them as well.

Receiving the folders, I was taken aback by the diversity of topics that were contained within them. Multiple folders with titles containing ‘Clay Shaw’, ‘David Ferrie’, ‘Guy Banister’, ‘Lee Oswald’. However, the more I delved into the folders, the more duplications and cross-categorising of documents I found within them. A good example is how records on Clay Shaw’s finances are filed within the ‘Miguel Torres’ folder. This is not a criticism of the original curator of the Garrison folders. In fact, the story goes that these folders (the last remaining of his office’s collection) were only just saved from being destroyed by Garrison DA predecessor and detractor, Harry Connick before being anonymously donated to Len Osanic.

What will surprise people that acquire the Garrison folders is not only their diversity of topics but how much time they span; from 1947 to 1991. The point being that Garrison amassed a massive catalogue during and after his investigation in the 60’s proving that his interest in the JFK assassination never waned right up until his death in 1992. It was out of honor and respect for Garrison’s admirable devotion to seeking the truth behind the JFK assassination, and the sacrifices he made in doing so, that I remained motivated to complete the gargantuan task of creating a simple name index for them.

Having acquired the Garrison folders, in April 2022, I opened up a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel and started recording names within the first folder ‘Additional Thornley Material’. And like Forrest Gump, I just kept on going by recording names. I soon reached out to Paul Bleau to let him know I was embarking on this and that I would let him know of anything of interest that I found. I asked him to reach back out to me for any facets of the JFK assassination that I might keep an eye out for as I went through the folders as well. At around the same time, about 1,000 lines deep into the index, I emailed Jim Di Eugenio to ensure that I wasn’t reinventing the wheel with anyone else’s work either.

He advised that Peter Vea had compiled a rough and very general index only. Onward I stepped in my epic task.

The Garrison Folders consists of 171 folders that include 12,818 scanned PDF pages taking up 2GB of space. This material contains newspaper clippings, Garrison office memos, affidavits, notes and records of interrogations, letters to and from, FBI, DPD, Secret Service, and Warren Commission testimony transcripts. I must stress that I did not read every page word for word – I simply scanned over them to look for names and context. I deliberately did this to stick to my overarching purpose of the exercise. To collect names and list them.

And it soon occurred to me that I could potentially farm out some folders to others to help with building the index. But considering the numerous instances of duplicate documents that I had already picked up in the folders, I knew that it was really only something I could complete, as I was already able to recall if I’d indexed a document or not. I am sure that this will be one of the positive outcomes for indexing Garrison’s folders – to organize all duplicates out of them to make the information as clear and easy to access as possible.

To ensure the quality of the index, I set myself some very clear guidelines to complete it.
- Its primary purpose should be an index of names and their location within the files. Any additional context that I could glean was bonus and should also be listed.
- Scanning not reading would enable me to build the index over a realistic period of time to ensure that my memory would be fresh for weeding out duplicate documents.
- Consistency would be key. Naming convention, capturing broad context and time all needed consistency in formatting and categorizing.
- The exercise of indexing the Garrison Folders was not about trying to find ‘silver bullets’ or ‘skeletons in the closet’ that would solve the JFK assassination once and for all. It would just be a resource to help those much more knowledgeable on the case help to do just that.
The last point is perhaps the most important for both completing the index, but for also how I intended it to be used. Most reasonable scholars of the JFK assassination will surely appreciate that there was never likely anything confined to paper that points directly to who set up Lee Oswald, killed President Kennedy, why it all happened as well as how it was covered up. If anything like that existed, the passage of time and an overarching apparatus to control the narrative of the case, for the sake of national security etc …would have seen it destroyed long ago.

But what is true is that most breakthroughs in the case ever since have come from researchers piecing together and corroborating documents and evidence. Depending on how well versed one is in the case, the materials might seem new, or it might not. That is according to one’s own experience and knowledge, everybody’s level of knowledge on the JFK Assassination is their own. This is why I sought to keep the index simple and easy to use. So anyone from new arrivals to the JFK assassination to its most seasoned and expert of scholars could use it and find and corroborate information.

So, how do those with the Garrison Folders best use the index? There’s a few ways, as intended, to ensure its ease of use for people of all knowledge and interest levels. It is a simple spreadsheet that can have filters easily applied to each of its columns:
1. Who
2. Folder Name
3. Page Number
4. Where
5. Organisation/Title/Alias
6. When
7. General Context (What)
8. Context Additional
9. Context Additional
If a user is particularly interested in researching a person, filtering out their name in column A will bring their name up along with reference to every other file and context that they appear in within the files. The same applies for all other columns right through until general context where a user may wish to gather all references across the files in relation to a particular facet from say Oswald’s vaccination records, Ferrie’s Library card, the Bilderberg Group to the RFK and MLK assassinations.

Users general interest in history will be also sated by the Garrison Folders and this corresponding Index as there are many news article clippings that provide a glimpses into the perspective of both mainstream and alternate media sources and publications during the time. And with the passage of time, it is interesting to note how astute some reporting was but also how prescient it would turn out to be when subsequent world history and current affairs is considered.

Before I embarked on building the index, I had been the beneficiary of the hard work of many scholars and truth seekers. And with thanks to the recent examples of perseverance by Paul Bleau and his invaluable work on the FPCC and Garrison aspects, Bart Kamp for his digitizing of Malcolm Blunt’s extensive records collection as well as the openness of Len Osanic / Black Op Radio and Jim DiEugenio, I felt compelled to do my bit too.

My hope for the index is two-fold—that scholars of all levels will use it to either validate their research or, better still, uncover missing pieces that prompts new lines of inquiry. I would also like it to be a source of inspiration for others wishing to contribute to the research community. History should never be immune from distillation. It should be examined without preconceived outcomes or agendas. Let how this index was compiled by one person wishing to their part also be an example of this.

You can download the index file here. (.xlsx file)
October 13, 2023
The JFK Files: Pieces of the Assassination Puzzle

Jeff Meek is an anomaly of the first order. He is the only reporter in the country who is allowed to devote a monthly column to the JFK case. It is for the Hot Springs Village Voice and it apparently gets a lot of good feedback since it has been appearing there for three years, since September 15, 2020 to be exact.

At the beginning of the book, the author relates how he got interested in the JFK assassination. Like many, it was from viewing the famous Geraldo Rivera, Goodnight America program in 1975. The was the evening that electrified the country about the assassination like it had not been since the day Kennedy was killed. Rivera had Robert Groden and Dick Gregory on the program and he screened the Zapruder film, for the first time, on national TV.

This inspired Jeff to talk to Dallas Chief of Police Jesse Curry. (p. 5) Curry told him that only 35 policemen knew Jack Ruby. Which, as Sylvia Meagher had already pointed out, is a flat out deception. Ruby’s friend, Reagan Turman, told the FBI that “Ruby was acquainted with at least 75 percent, and probably 80 percent, of the police officers on the Dallas Police Department.” Which means he knew several hundred of them. (Accessories After the Fact, p. 423). But Curry did tell Meek that they probably should have investigated Lee Oswald’s friend George DeMohrenschildt more. (p.9).

This makes a good segue to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the reporter’s scintillating interview with Dan Hardway. (pp. 13-19) Hardway was recruited from Cornell Law School by Professor Robert Blakey, who became the second, and final, chief counsel to that committee. Dan was teamed with another Cornell law student Eddie Lopez. A couple of their areas of inquiry were the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oswald in Mexico City. Dan says that they often requested the identity of the case officer who the CIA appointed for the Cuban exile group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or DRE, in 1963. The CIA would not say who that officer was. We know today that it was George Joannides. And this is the man the CIA sent to perform liaison duties between the HSCA and the Agency. To put it mildly, he was not very forthcoming in that function.

Dan told Jeff, “I don’t think there is any doubt that they [the Agency] had operational interest in Oswald.” (p. 16) Hardway also said that he was very interested in CIA officer William Harvey. Because Harvey and mobster John Rosselli were running Cuban exile hit teams onto the island. But he and Eddie were not allowed the security file on Harvey.

Something that I have never heard Dan admit to before, he does say here. That he was actually pitched for recruitment into the Agency by another CIA liaison to the HSCA, Regis Blahut. He reported this in an outside contact report which he thinks has now been lost. (p. 19). But one of the most historically important things that Dan says is that today he does not think the HSCA conclusions stand up. And, in fact, he adds that even Blakey no longer has a lot of faith in them. One major reason being that the HSCA was misled by Agency disinformation.

This interview is followed up by one with another HSCA staffer. Except this person has not talked nearly as much as Dan. Her names is Leslie Wizelman. (p. 21) She was the third law student Blakey recruited to work on the HSCA. She did not buy the Warren Commission’s official story. But this is what she told Jeff: “Wizelman felt she had given up law school time only to discover that Blakey, initially, had a preconception that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.”

In fact, she felt the committee was simply got going anywhere. To the point that she wanted to resign and return to her education. But she was discouraged from doing so by Blakey, who told her she was acting immaturely. Once this happened, she was assigned to listen to FBI tapes of the Mafia. She did not think there was much of value there. She also had doubts about Ruby being sent into Dallas at the request of the Chicago Outfit. In fact, the more she looked into this, she though it was wrong. In her opinion, the Mob connection to Jack Ruby was that they knew who he was and knew he was easily influenced. (p. 23)

Summing up, she feels that congress is not the place to do a homicide inquiry. One reason being the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency are very obstinate, since they know they can wait you out. When Jeff asked her if they got close to anything, she replied in the negative. She says they were not given enough information and they were constrained by the politics of the committee. She also adds a fascinating observation. She lived with Dan and Ed and thought they were under surveillance. The man next door worked for the phone company.

Another interesting interview and chapter is the one on Dallas County Detective Buddy Walthers. Walthers found out that Oswald had been at the Alpha 66 meeting house at Harlandale through his mother-in-law. She also said the Cubans had moved out of this house about a week before the assassination. (p. 165) She knew since she lived on the same street, just a couple of doors down. Jeff suspected the woman’s name was Lillian Robinson, which Walthers’ biographer Eric Tagg confirmed was the case. Robinson recognized Oswald’s face on TV the night of the assassination. Look magazine editor T. George Harris had also discovered complementary information about Oswald at the address.

The man who allegedly rented out the house was Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an official of Alpha 66. As Jeff mentions, although some have said Orcaberro resembled Oswald, after looking at photos of the two, such is not the case. Interestingly, the reporter notes that Walthers learned that members of the DRE also attended some of the meetings. The Secret Service knew about Orcabero, but never connected him to the house. The FBI noted that he was violently anti-Kennedy and was probably the highest official in Dallas for Alpha 66. And the FBI did connect him to the Harlandale home through his own words. (p. 167) The reporter wraps this altogether by locating an interviewing Walther’s daughter, Cheryl Cleavenger.

There are also interviews with people who were on the White House staff for Kennedy, like Sue Vogelsinger and Nancy Dutton; also columns about incidents during the Kennedy presidency like the Missiles of October and the Berlin Crisis. Meek also interviewed some of the personages Oliver Stone talked to for his film, JFK Revisited, like Jeff Morley, Barry Ernest and Jim Gochenaur. In the last, Jeff got something out of the Church Committee witness that he did not reveal to Stone. That was this: in Secret Service agent Elmer Moore’s portfolio of pictures, there was one of the infamous backyard photos. Jim said, “he could clearly see a line across the photo through Oswald’s chin area.” (p. 139) It would have been nice if Jim could have stolen that photo.

There some interviews I have reservations about. For example, with Ruth Paine and Secret Service agent Mike Howard. I wish Jeff had talked to Greg Parker and Carol Hewett before doing the first, and Vince Palamara before doing the second. But overall, Meek’s batting average is pretty high. He scores many more hits than pop flies. Especially considering the fact that there are over 40 chapters in the book.

We should all feel appreciative that there is someone doing this kind of work on a regular basis in journalism today.

October 5, 2023
Part 2 of 6: Jack Ruby, the Dallas Police and Oswald’s Rights
11. The Secret Service and The Picket Fence.

“The Secret Service agents assigned to the motorcade remained at their posts during the race to the hospital. None stayed at the scene of the shooting, and none entered the Texas School Book Depository Building at or immediately after the shooting. Secret Service procedure requires that each agent stay with the person being protected and not be diverted unless it is necessary to accomplish the protective assignment. Forrest V. Sorrels, special agent in charge of the Dallas office, was the first Secret Service agent to return to the scene of the assassination, approximately 20 or 25 minutes after the shots were fired.” (WCR; p. 52.)

When Sorrels testified before the Commission, he agreed with that time interval. (Volume VII; p. 347/348.)

With the facts established regarding the movements of the Secret Service after the assassination, it is important to consider the following testimonies of Dallas Police Officers Smith, Weitzman, and Harkness along with a witness, Mrs Jack Frazen. These individuals testified or gave depositions, that in the immediate aftermath of the President’s murder, they each encountered individuals who claimed to be agents of the Secret Service and, in some instances, even produced Secret Service credentials.

Joe Marshall Smith testified under oath that he encountered men claiming to be Secret Service behind the picket fence in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Joe Marshall Smith. “Yes, sir: and this woman came up to me and she was just in hysterics. She told me, “They are shooting the President from the bushes.” So, I immediately proceeded up here [Grassy Knoll]”
Wesley Liebeler. “You proceeded up to an area immediately behind the concrete structure here that is described by Elm Street and the street that runs immediately in front of the Texas School Book Depository, is that right?”
Joe Marshall Smith. “I was checking all the bushes and I checked all the cars in the parking lot.”
Wesley Liebeler. “There is a parking lot in behind this grassy area back from Elm Street toward the railroad tracks, and you went down to the parking lot and looked around?”
Joe Marshall Smith. “Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn’t alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there. I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.”
Wesley Liebeler. “Did you accost this man?”
Joe Marshall Smith. “Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.”
Wesley Liebeler. “Do you remember who it was?”
Joe Marshall Smith. “No, sir; I don’t-because then we started checking the cars. In fact, I was checking the bushes, and I went through the cars. and I started over here in this particular section.” (Volume VII; p. 535.)

Officer Smith said to the Texas Observer that after the assassination “A woman came up to me in hysterics. She said they’re shooting at the President from the bushes, and I just took off. A cement arch stands between the depository building and the underpass. On the underpass side of the arch, there is a fence that lets through almost no light and is neck-high; an oak tree behind the fence makes a little arbor there. A man standing behind the fence, further shielded by cars in the parking lot behind him, might have had a clear shot at the President as his car began the run downhill on Elm Street toward the underpass. Patrol-man Smith ran into this area. I found a lot of Secret Service men I suppose they were Secret Service men and deputy sheriffs and plain-clothes men, he said. He was so put off by what the woman had said—he didn’t get her name—that he spent some time checking cars on the lot, he said. He caught the smell of gunpowder there. he said: “a faint smell of it—I could tell it was in the air…a faint odour of it.” (Texas Observer; 13th December 1963, p. 9.)

Smith characterized the Secret Service imposter in this way:“He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic’s hands. And afterwards it didn’t ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn’t snap on it.” (Anthony Summers, Not In Your Lifetime; p. 57)

Seymour Weitzman testified that he encountered men claiming to be Secret Service behind the picket fence.

Joseph Ball. “Did you go into the railroad yards”
Seymour Weitzman. “Yes sir”
Joseph Ball. “What did you notice in the railroad yards?”
Seymour Weitzman. “We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions”
Joseph Ball. “Were there other people besides you?”
Seymour Weitzman. “Yes sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn’t quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked like human bone.” (Volume VII; p. 107)

Mrs Jack Frazen. According to an FBI report dated 11/22/63 Mrs Franzen had: “observed police officers and plain-clothes men, who she assumed were Secret Service Agents, searching an area adjacent to the TSBD Building, from which area she assumed the shots which she heard had come.” (Volume XXIV; p. 525.)

D. V. Harkness testified that 6 minutes after the assassination he had encountered men at the back of the Texas School Book Depository who claimed to be Secret Service.

David Belin. “Was anyone around in the back when you got there?”
D. V. Harkness. “There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn’t get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service”. (Volume VI; p. 312.)

Jesse Curry. “I think he must have been bogus. Certainly, the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious.” (Not In Your Lifetime; p. 58)

According to the Warren Commission’s own findings, the individuals encountered by these witnesses could not have been genuine Secret Service agents. These encounters occurred prior to the return of Forrest V. Sorrels to Dealey Plaza. The presence of these impersonators raises important questions for the case. Who were these individuals claiming to be Secret Service agents? What was their motive or purpose in impersonating members of the Presidents security detail in the immediate aftermath of the President’s murder?

12. The Testimony Which Negates the Single Bullet Theory.

Commission Conclusion: “Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.” (WCR; p. 19.)

The Testimonies of John & Nellie Connally Which Refute the Commission Conclusion.

Mrs Connally. “When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said Mr President, you can’t say Dallas doesn’t love you. Then I don’t know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.”
Arlen Specter. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. Connally. Yes, and it seemed to me there was—he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying “Oh, no, no, no.” Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumbled like a wounded animal to the right he said, “My God, they are going to kill us all. (Volume IV, p. 147.)

Governor Connally.

ArlenSpecter. “As the automobile turned left onto Elm from Houston, what did occur there, Governor”?
Governor Connally. “We had, we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don’t recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could, I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on to Elm Street. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because I immediately, the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So, I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of centre, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.”
Arlen Specter. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor Connally. “A very, very brief span of time. Again, my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this—that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there was either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and, in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest, that I had probably been fatally hit.”

To say that they were hit by separate bullets is synonymous with saying that there were two assassins.” Norman Redlich, Commission Counsel. (Inquest; p. 43 Volume IV, P132-133, watch this)

13.Truth Is Our Only Client Here?

“If this is truth, then black is white. Night is day. And war is peace. This is not truth. This is a false document.” Sylvia Meagher.

Although Robert Kennedy openly endorsed the Warren Commission Report, he held a privately disdainful perspective towards it. RFK had derisively dubbed the extensive 888-page prosecutorial brief a: “shoddy piece of craftsmanship.” Moreover, the southern wing of the Commission, namely Senators Richard Russell, John Sherman Cooper, and Representative Hale Boggs, openly challenged the cornerstone of the Commission’s case: the Single Bullet Theory, expressing their significant dissent.

John Sherman Cooper. “I could not convince myself that the same bullet struck both of them. No, I wasn’t convinced by [the SBT]. Neither was Senator Russell.” (James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited, pp. 30-31)
John Sherman Cooper. “I, too, objected to such a conclusion; there was no evidence to show both men were hit by the same bullet.” (Edward Epstein, Inquest; p.149-150)
Hale Boggs. “I had strong doubts about it [the single bullet theory], the question was never resolved.” (Inquest; pp.149-150)

In a declassified telephone conversation with President Johnson, Russell expressed his frustration with the Commission’s proceedings.

Richard Russell. “Now that damned Warren Commission business whupped me down so, we got through today and I just, you know what I did? I went over, got on the plane and came home and didn’t even have a toothbrush, I didn’t bring a shirt, I got a few little things here, I didn’t even have my pills, my anti histamine pills.”
Lyndon Johnson. “Why did you get in such a rush?”
Richard Russell. “Well, I was just worn out fighting over that damned report”.
Lyndon Johnson. “Well, you got to take an hour out…to get your clothes.”
Richard Russell. “Well, they were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connolly…went through him, through his hand, his bone, into his leg, everything else…just a lot of stuff that… I couldn’t hear all of the evidence and cross examine all of them but I did read the record and so I just I don’t know… but I was the only fellow there that practically requested any changes and what the staff got out of it…this staff business always scares me, I like to put my own views down…But we got you a pretty good report”
Lyndon Johnson. “Well what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?”
Richard Russell.“Well, it don’t make much difference but they said that they believed…that the Commission believed that the same bullet which hit Kennedy hit Connolly… well I don’t believe it.”
Lyndon Johnson. “I don’t either.”
Richard Russell. “And so, I couldn’t sign it…. And I said that Governor Connolly testified direct to the contrary and I am not going to approve of that. So, I finally made them said that there was a difference in the Commission in that. Part of them believed that was not so. Course if a fellow was as accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off with the next one…. Well, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street. Well, if a man is a good enough shot to put two bullets right in Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile, nor the street.”

These insights from the conversation between Russell and Johnson highlight the dissenting opinions and doubts surrounding the Single Bullet Theory within the Commission. It becomes apparent that the Warren Commission Report faced internal criticism and concerns regarding its findings. (read this, watch this and this)

14. Jack Ruby and The Dallas Police Department.

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. “A great deal has been written about the relationship of the Dallas Police Department with Jack Ruby. We have twelve hundred men in our department, and we had each man submit a report regarding his knowledge or acquaintance with Jack Ruby. Less than fifty men even knew Jack Ruby. And less than a dozen had ever been in his place of business. Most of these that had been in his place of business had been in there because they were sent there on investigations or had answered a call for police service. I believe there was four men in our department that we were able to determine had been there socially. That is off duty. That were present in his nightclub.”

Numerous witnesses have attested to the fact that Jack Ruby was a well-known associate of the Dallas Police Department. Many officers, detectives, and personnel were familiar with Ruby due to his frequent visits to police headquarters and his connections within the city’s nightclub and entertainment industry. Below I have reproduced just some of the testimony on the record, relating to Ruby’s acquaintance with the Dallas Police Department.

Nancy Hamilton Former Employee of Ruby.

Mark Lane. “Were you employed by Jack Ruby”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Yes, I was. This was in 1961 in Dallas at his club The Carousel and I was bartender, waitress and rather the manager there”.
Mark Lane. “How did you get that job”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Well, I had gone into Dallas not knowing anyone and of course the first place I went was the Police Department and uh they were very kind and got me the job there”.
Mark Lane. “They got you the job at Jack Ruby’s”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Yes, they did”.
Mark Lane. “Did they know Ruby”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Personally, oh yes very well, vouched for him…wonderful person…great man…well known by the Dallas Police Department.”
Mark Lane. “Other than Dallas Police officers what officials did frequent Ruby’s establishment”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Oh…such as your District Attorney which would be Mr Wade”.
Mark Lane. “How many police officers do you estimate Jack Ruby knew on a personal level”?
Nancy Hamilton. At least half and probably two thirds”.
Mark Lane. “There were almost twelve hundred police officers in Dallas in 1963. Would you say Ruby knew six hundred of them”?
Nancy Hamilton. “Oh easily.”

Nancy Hamilton/Rich also reiterated to the Warren Commission the extent of Ruby’s popularity with the Dallas Police.

Nancy Rich. “There is no possible way that Jack Ruby could walk in Dallas and be mistaken for a newspaper reporter, especially in the police department. Not by any stretch of the imagination.”
Leon Hubert. “Is that your opinion?”
Nancy Rich. “That is not my personal opinion. That is fact.”
Leon Hubert. “Well, on what do you base it?”
Nancy Rich. “Ye gods, I don’t think there is a cop in Dallas that doesn’t know Jack Ruby. He practically lived at that station. They lived in his place. Even the lowest patrolman on the beat…knew him personally” (Volume XIV; p. 359.)

Mr Johnson Former Employee of Ruby.

Mark Lane.“Did Ruby know many Dallas Police officers”?
Mr Johnson. “Well yes, he did. I’d say he knew ah probably half of the people on the force”.
Mark Lane. “There were about Twelve hundred police officers on the force”.
Mr Johnson. “Yes, well I am sure he knew about half of them, and he was very nice to them.”

Barney Weinstein Manager of The Theatre Lounge.
“He [Ruby] did know a lot of police. He knew ’em all. He curried their favour all the time.” (Texas Observer, December 13 1963, p. 8.)

Let us use some specifics, Sgt. Patrick Dean said he knew Ruby for approximately three years. (Vol. II, p. 407) Det. Jim Leavelle testified he knew him for approximately 12 years. (Vol. III, p. 16) Det. L. C. Graves, said he knew him for 10 years. (Vol. XIII p. 9) Officer Blackie Harrison, who Ruby concealed himself behind before shooting Oswald, said he knew him for 12 years. (Vol. XII, p. 237). Lt. Jack Revill also knew him for 12 years. (Vol. XII p. 82)

If one goes through the volumes of Commission testimony, one will see that Lt. Rio Pierce knew Ruby for a dozen years, Captain O. C. Jones knew Ruby for over ten years, Detective Buford Lee Beaty knew him for a dozen years, Det. Combest knew him for about five years, Det. R. L. Lowery knew him for several years, Sgt. Steele knew him for about 8 years, Lt. W. Wiggins knew him for a number of years, and Detective Clardy knew him for about 8 years. And again, this does not begin to exhaust the number of police who admitted to knowing Ruby.

Now consider the following exchange between the Commission and Ruby’s friend and roommate George Senator.

Leon Hubert.“What was Jack Ruby’s attitude toward the police as a group?”
George Senator. “Well, all I know is apparently he must like them. They always used to come to see him.”
Leon Hubert. “Tell us about those who came to see him. Do you know who they were?”
George Senator. “I knew a lot of them by face. I didn’t know them all by name.”
Leon Hubert. “Did they come frequently?”
George Senator. “Various ones, yes, every day.” (Volume XIV; p. 213)

Now consider this statement by Detective Will Fritz.

Leon Hubert. “Do you know Jack Ruby at all, or did you know?”
Will Fritz. “Did I know him before; no, sir, I did not… That is the first time I ever saw him, when he was arrested.”(Volume XV; p. 148)

Travis Kirk, Dallas Attorney, 23 Years.“It is inconceivable that Fritz did not know Ruby. Kirk described Fritz as a domineering, dictatorial officer possessing a photographic memory and a thorough knowledge of the Dallas underworld. In light of Ruby’s reputation and notoriety in Dallas prior to the murder of Oswald… Mr Kirk considers it utterly ridiculous that Captain Fritz might pretend that he did not know Ruby, including physical recognition. Mr Kirk states that he would have to question the veracity of Captain Fritz if Fritz were to disclaim knowledge or recognition of Jack Ruby.”

Upon his arrest for the murder of Lee Oswald, Ruby exclaimed to the arresting officers: “You all know me, I’m Jack Ruby.” (Volume XII-XIII; p 399, 308, 30.)

15. ‘The Abortive Transfer’? The Tragic Murder of Lee Oswald.

“The ACLU hold the Dallas police responsible for the shooting of Oswald, saying that minimum security considerations were flouted by their capitulation to publicity…which exposed Oswald to the very danger that took his life”.

We Are Going To Kill Him.

Billy Grammer, a Dallas Police Communications Officer, received an urgent anonymous phone call around 9 pm on November 23, 1963. In an interview for the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Grammer recalled this incident, saying: “I thought I recognised the voice but at the same time I couldn’t put a face or name with the voice. We talked and he began telling me that we needed to change the plans on moving Oswald from the basement that, uh he knew of the plans to make the move and if we did not make a change the statement, he made precisely was we are going to kill him.” Grammer reported the threat made against Oswald’s life to his superiors. Grammer first learned that Ruby had in fact killed Oswald when he saw it on television the next morning: “No sooner than I had turned it on [TV] and they were telling that Jack Ruby had killed Oswald. Then I suddenly realized, knowing Jack Ruby the way I did, that this was the man I was talking to on the phone last night. At that time, I put the voice with the face, and I knew myself that Jack Ruby was the one that made that call to me the night before. I think it was obvious because he knew me, and I knew him, and he called me by name over the telephone and seeing this and knowing what I knew and what he had said to me it had to be Jack Ruby… He made the statement that we are going to kill him. Which leads me to believe that this was not a spontaneous thing that happened on the spur of the moment he was watching Oswald coming out of the door and all of a sudden, he decided to shoot him. I do not believe that. I think this was a planned event with him being the man to do the shooting.” (watch this)

Will Fritz. “During the night on Saturday night, I had a call at my home from uniformed captain, Captain Frazier, I believe is his name, he called me out at home and told me they had, had some threats and he had to transfer Oswald… I have always felt that that was Ruby who made that call.” (Volume IV; p. 233)

Officer Perry McCoy testified he got a call a few hours before Oswald was moved and this was from a member of a committee of one hundred, and they had voted to kill Oswald while he was being transferred to the county jail. (Volume XIX; p. 537/538) This same threat was given to the FBI and was sent to the DPD’s William Frazier at about 3:30 in the morning of the 24^th. (Volume VII, pp. 53-54)

J. Edgar Hoover

In a declassified document authored by J. Edgar Hoover and written mere hours after Oswald’s murder, Hoover voiced his frustration towards the Dallas Police Department, blaming them for Oswald’s death despite explicit warnings from the FBI.

“There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead. Last night we received a call in our Dallas office from a man talking in a calm voice and saying he was a member of a committee organised to kill Oswald. We at once notified the Chief of Police and he assured us that Oswald would be given sufficient protection. However, this was not done”.

He continued, “Oswald having been killed today after our warnings to the Dallas Police Department, was inexcusable.” (check this)

Sheriff Decker and Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels disagreed with the timing of the transfer and the method. Both men thought a transfer in the middle of the night with no one around would be the proper way to do such an assignment. And Decker though he should be placed him on the floorboard of the car. (Volume XIX, pp. 537-38; Volume XIII, p. 63) Jim Leavelle thought that Oswald should have been led out to Main Street while the crowd had gathered thereby avoiding all the reporters and cameras. (Volume III, p. 17)

L. C. Graves.“We knew better than to transfer him under those conditions, but we didn’t have any choice.” (watch this)

The procedure used to transfer Lee Oswald, to the county jail, was fundamentally flawed and, without question, should never have been conducted in the manner that it was. A thorough assessment of the circumstances lays bare distinct irregularities and contradictions employed by the Dallas Police. There is indisputable evidence to show that the strategy employed during Oswald’s transfer was egregiously mishandled, serving as the immediate trigger for his untimely demise.

Burt Griffin. “Were you given any instructions as to how you should guard him?”
L. C. Graves. “As I said, I was–told to hold to the arm and walk close to him and Montgomery was to walk behind us and Captain Fritz, and Lieutenant Swain in front of us and that is the way we started out to the elevator, and out of the elevator door over to the jail office”.
Burt Griffin. “Was there any discussion about staying close to Oswald?”
L. C. Graves. “We were instructed to stay close to him, yes.” (Volume XIII; p. 5)

Failure to Follow Established Security Protocols.
Lee Oswald’s transfer to the county jail, was supposed to be safeguarded by a four-man protection team. The arrangement included Will Fritz at the forefront, Jim Leavelle handcuffed to Oswald’s right, L.C. Graves handcuffed to Oswald’s left, and L.D. Montgomery covering the rear. As the plan dictated, this team was to escort Oswald from the basement elevator to the ‘awaiting’ squad car. However, almost immediately after entering the basement, Captain Fritz strayed from the established protocol. Instead of maintaining close proximity to Oswald for protection, Fritz positioned himself several feet ahead, effectively abandoning his assigned post. This aberration in formation created an open space, a gap that Jack Ruby exploited to access Oswald.

Throughout the entire process, Fritz did not check back on Oswald once, which raises concerns about the attentiveness and effectiveness of the protection measures afforded Oswald. Travis Kirk stated to the FBI that: “Anyone not having status in law enforcement or the legal profession who had access to the Dallas Police Department facilities would have to be known to Captain Fritz. Reports from Dallas specify that Ruby did have this access.” Kirk speculated that: “It was to captain Fritz’s advantage that Oswald was killed for it enabled him to close, in Fritz’s words, a murder case based on circumstantial evidence. And that the Oswald case was bound to involve the Dallas Police Department, including Captain Fritz, in controversy for years to come.” Kirk explained that “the Jack Ruby matter, insofar as Captain Fritz is concerned, can be more easily handled by the Dallas authorities.” (read this document and watch this video)

Permitting Unsecured Crowd Proximity.
One major issue in question is why any individuals especially newsmen, were permitted to be in such close proximity to Lee Oswald during his transfer. The police, cognizant of the substantial threats to Oswald’s life, should have enforced a secure perimeter around him. This hypothetical exclusion zone would have been monitored by police personnel, ensuring that anyone attempting to breach the boundary and approach Oswald would be immediately intercepted. The lack of such a safety measure raises serious questions about the adequacy of the security protocols during Oswald’s transfer.

L. C. Graves. “I was under the impression there wouldn’t be any news media inside that rampway, that they would be behind that area over there, but they were in the way. Chief Curry told Captain Fritz that the security was taken care of, that there wouldn’t be nobody in that ramp. Anyway, that cameras would be over behind that rail of that ramp. So, what we expected to find was our officers along the side there, but we found newsmen inside that ramp, in fact, in the way of that car.”
Burt Griffin. “You say you were quite surprised when you saw these news people?”L. C. Graves. “I was surprised that they were rubbing my elbow. You know,if you saw that film, you saw one of them with a mike in his hand. He actually rubbed my elbow. We were in a slight turn when this thing happened, and my attention had been called to that car door, and this joker was standing there with a microphone in his hand, and others that—I don’t know if they were newsmen—they weren’t officers—had cameras around their necks and everything.” (Volume XIII; p. 7/8)

Absence of Personal Protective Equipment.
While the unique circumstances surrounding Oswald’s transfer in 1963 were nothing short of extraordinary, it is nonetheless evident that critical safety measures were conspicuously absent. Oswald, a prisoner under intense scrutiny and heightened danger, was denied essential protective resources, such as body armour, even in the face of palpable threats to his life. While it’s understood that such equipment might not have aligned with the standard protocol at the time, the gravity of the situation undeniably called for extraordinary precautions. The omission of available protective gear, in this case, registers as a considerable oversight. The provision of body armour to Oswald, may have been instrumental in preserving his life.

Lack of Armed Guard Presence.
Despite the high-profile nature of Oswald’s case and the known threats against him, he was not escorted by an armed guard during the transfer. The presence of an armed guard could have potentially deterred an assassination attempt, like the one carried out by Ruby.

Poorly Planned Vehicle Positioning.
The vehicle intended to transport Oswald to the county jail, was not in the correct position at the time of transfer. This meant that Oswald was exposed to potential threats for a longer period.

Jim Leavelle.“All right, when we left the jail cell, we proceeded down to the booking desk there, up to the door leading out into the basement, and I purposely told Mr. Graves to hold it a minute while Captain Fritz checked the area outside. I don’t know why I did that, because we had not made any plans to do so, but I said, Let’s hold it a minute and let him see if everything is in order. Because we had been given to understand that the car would be across the passageway.”
Leon Hubert.“Of the jail corridor?”
Jim Leavelle. “And that, and we would have nothing to do but walk straight from the door, approximately 13 or 14 feet to the car and then Captain Fritz, when we asked him to give us the high sign on it, he said, everything is all set.”
Leon Hubert.“Did you notice what time it was?”
Jim Leavelle.“No; I did not. That is the only error that I can see. The captain should have known that the car was not in the position it should be, and I was surprised when I walked to the door and the car was not in the spot it should have been, but I could see it was in back, and backing into position, but had it been in position where we were told it would be, that would have eliminated a lot of the area in which anyone would have access to him, because it would have been blocked by the car. In fact, if the car had been sitting where we were told it was going to be, see, it would have been sitting directly upon the spot where Ruby was standing when he fired the shot.”(Volume XIII; p. 17)

L. C. Graves.“Well, we got down to the basement. We hesitated on the elevator until Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Swain stepped out. Then we followed them around the outside exit door into the hallway which leads to the ramp and then hesitated there a little bit with Oswald so they could check out there and see that everything was all right, and when we got the go-ahead sign, [from Fritz] that everything was all right we walked out with him… Now, we, Captain Fritz sent Dhority and Brown and Beck on down to the basement in plenty of time to get that car up there for us.” (Volume XIII; p. 7/8)

L.D. Montgomery. “Captain Fritz stepped out into this door leading out to the ramp… and told us, [to] Come on… Like I say, we came out there. They crammed those mikes over there, and we had to slow up for just a second, because they was backing this car into position. It was supposed to have been in position when we got there, but it wasn’t there, so, we had to pause, or slow down for the car to come on back.” (Volume XIII; p. 28/29)

Given the high-profile and volatile nature of Oswald’s case, it’s puzzling why Captain Fritz authorized the transfer process knowing full well that the vehicle was not yet in position to receive Lee? An optimally orchestrated transfer would have ensured that the car was situated correctly before initiating the process. Additionally, had the vehicle been correctly positioned, an additional precaution should have entailed stationing an armed police officer at the open door that Oswald was meant to enter. This would have facilitated a seamless and safer transfer from the basement to the vehicle, providing an extra layer of security to Oswald during this crucial process. This measure would have significantly minimized the potential for any unplanned incidents, such as what tragically transpired.

The Car Horns.
In an unusual occurrence, a car horn sounds as Oswald is led out into the basement, and again just before Ruby stepped out to shoot Oswald.Jim Di Eugenio points out in Reclaiming Parkland, “Once you’re aware of it, it is almost eerie to watch.” Whilst gravely ill in prison Ruby commented about the horns saying: “If you hear a lot of horn-blowing, it will be for me, they will want my blood.” (Reclaiming Parkland; p. 204)

The Dallas Police Department, entrusted with Oswald’s safety, displayed an egregious level of negligence. Their missteps weren’t just minor oversights or simple mistakes. They bore the weighty implications of life and death, resulting in the irreversible consequence of a human life lost prematurely.

Imagine an alternative scenario: Oswald, represented by legal counsel, could have experienced an entirely different outcome. A competent legal representative would likely have challenged the plan to transfer Oswald under such precarious conditions, thus potentially changing the course of history. Yet this was not the case.

To this day, no one from the higher echelons of the Dallas Police Department has been called to account for their role in the circumstances leading to Oswald’s death. This grave oversight is not just a failure of an individual or a department, but a failure of the justice system itself, a sobering reminder of the devastating consequences when those sworn to protect and serve are negligent of their duties.

“Who else could have timed it so perfectly by seconds? If it were timed that way, then someone in the police department is guilty of giving the information as to when Lee Harvey Oswald was coming down.” Jack Ruby. (Volume V; p. 206)

16. Did Ruby’s Life Hinge on Killing Oswald?

“Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred—my motives. The people have had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in. Will never let the true facts, come above board to the world.” Jack Ruby.

Following the murder, Ruby was promptly detained and transported to a cell in the city jail. Police Officer Don Archer, who had direct contact with Ruby during this time, reported intriguing observations about Ruby’s behaviour in the aftermath of his arrest.

Don Archer. “His behaviour to begin with, he was very hyper. He was sweating profusely. I could see his heart. Course we had stripped him down for security purposes and he asked me for one of my cigarettes, so I gave him a cigarette. Finally, uh after about two hours had elapsed, which put it around 1pm the head of the secret service came up and I conferred with him, and he told me that Oswald had in effect died and it should shock him [Ruby] cause it would mean the death penalty. So, I returned and said Jack it looks like its gon be the electric chair for you. Instead of being shocked he became calm, he quit sweating, his heart slowed down, I asked him if he wanted a cigarette, and he advised me that he didn’t smoke. I was just astonished that this was a complete difference in behaviour of what I had expected. I would say that his life had depended on him getting Oswald.” (watch this and this)

17. The People V. Lee Harvey Oswald.

“Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Commission Conclusion. “The numerous statements…made to the press by various law enforcement officials, during this period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous and misleading, it helped create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen”. (WCR; p 20.)

The Presumption of Innocence.
“It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.” (read this)

The following statements made by Dallas Law Enforcement Officials expressing their firm belief in Oswald’s guilt, seriously undermined Oswald’s presumption of innocence and confirmed a prejudgement of Oswald’s culpability.

DA Henry Wade. “I would say that without any doubt he’s the killer, the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I…there’s no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.”

Reporter. “How do you sum him up, as a man based on your experience with criminal types?”
Wade. “Oh I think he’s…uh… the man that planned this murder, weeks or months ago… and has laid his plans carefully and carried them out and has planned at that time what he’s gonna tell the police that are questioning him at present”

Gerald Hill. 11/22/63.
Reporter. “Do you believe he is the same man that killed the police officer?”

Gerald Hill. “Having been in it from the very beginning, as far as the officer’s death is concerned, I am convinced that he is the man that killed the officer.” (watch this)

“Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man. It takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man.” Hidden motto of Wade’s office. (Reclaiming Parkland; p.74)

The notion of a “great prosecutor” convicting an innocent man, as indicated above, raises serious concerns about the practices of the Dallas prosecutor’s office. This implies a mindset that prioritizes securing convictions over ensuring the integrity of the legal process. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of justice, which demand fairness, objectivity, and a commitment to the pursuit of truth rather than the mere tallying of convictions.

In a divergent assessment from District Attorney Henry Wade’s public statements, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover communicated a differing evaluation of the evidence in the case against Oswald to President Johnson on November 23, 1963. Hoover revealed his disappointment with the Dallas Police Department’s inability to build a convincing case proving Oswald’s guilt, a view that stood in stark contrast to Wade’s publicized optimistic portrayal of the investigation’s progress.

Hoover conveyed: “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong…The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.” (read this)

On November 24^th, Hoover detailed his attempts to manage the media narrative surrounding the investigation, frustrated with the local police’s public discourse. He recounted,“I dispatched to Dallas one of my top assistants in the hope that he might stop the Chief of Police and his staff from doing so damned much talking on television. They did not really have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information… all the Dallas police had was three witnesses who tentatively identified him as the man who shot the policeman and boarded a bus to go home shortly after the President was killed.”

Hoover expressed his concern over Oswald’s potential defense, remarking, “Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer and Abt, with only that kind of evidence, could have turned the case around, I’m afraid. All the talking down there might have required a change of venue on the basis that Oswald could not have gotten a fair trial in Dallas.”

He expressed his exasperation with the police department’s uncontrolled dissemination of information to the press, emphasizing:“Chief of Police Curry I understand cannot control Capt. Fritz of the Homicide Squad, who is giving much information to the press… we want them to shut up.”

Regarding the way in which Oswald’s murder transpired Hoover continued, “It will allow, I’m afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon. There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated—which they were.” (read this)

Nick Katzenbach also echoed Hoovers frustrations with the Dallas officials.“The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity or conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.” (read this)

The following remarks by Mark Lane and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) highlight the profound concerns about Lee Oswald’s presumption of innocence status and his prospects of receiving a fair trial anywhere in the United States.

“In all likelihood there does not exist a single American community where reside 12 men or women, good and true, who presume that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy.” A Lawyers Brief, Mark Lane. (read here)

“The American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday that the police and prosecuting officials; of Dallas committed gross violations of civil liberties in their handling of Lee H. Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy. The group said that it would have been “simply impossible” for Oswald, had he lived, to obtain a fair trial because he had already been “tried and convicted” by the public statements of Dallas law enforcement officials. The organization proposed that the special panel created by President Johnson to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy should also examine the treatment accorded Oswald. The Dallas police and District Attorney Henry Wade have contended that Oswald’s rights were not infringed. The liberties union raised these questions:

Q. How much time elapsed before Oswald was advised of his rights to counsel?
Q. How much time elapsed before Oswald was permitted access to a telephone to call his family and an attorney?
Q. During what periods and for how long was Oswald interrogated?
Q. What methods of interrogation were used?
Q. Was Oswald advised of his right to remain silent?

The ACLU described the transfer of Oswald as “a theatrical production for the benefit of the television cameras…. It is our opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald, had he lived, would have been deprived of all opportunity to receive a fair trial by the conduct of the police and prosecuting officials in Dallas, under pressure from the public and the news media. From the moment of his arrest until his murder two days later, Oswald was tried and convicted many times over in the newspapers, on the radio, and over television by the public statements of the Dallas law enforcement officials. Time and again high–ranking police and prosecution officials state[d] their complete satisfaction that Oswald was the assassin…As their investigation uncovered one piece of evidence after another, the results were broadcast to the public. All this evidence was described by the Dallas officials as authentic and incontestable proof that Oswald was the Presidents assassin. The cumulative effect of these public pronouncements was to impress indelibly on the public’s mind that Oswald was indeed the slayer. With such publicity, it would have been impossible for Oswald to get a fair trial in Dallas or anywhere else in the country. Oswald’s trial would have been nothing but a hollow formality. The American Civil Liberties Union (see this)

Oswald declines the right to counsel?
“The ACLU recalled that Greg Olds, president of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union and three volunteer lawyers went to the city jail late in the evening Nov. 22, the day the President was assassinated. They were told by police officials, including Capt. Will Fritz, head of the homicide bureau, and Justice of the Peace David Johnston before whom Oswald was first arraigned that Oswald had been advised of his right to counsel but that he had declined to request counsel. Since the ACLU attorneys had not been retained by either Oswald or his family, they had no right to see the prisoner nor give him legal advice”. (The American Civil Liberties Union) (see this)

11/22/63, Oswald Requests A Lawyer.
Lee Oswald consistently expressed his desire for legal representation during his detention. He repeatedly requested legal assistance and expressed confusion about the charges against him. These statements, captured by reporters illustrate Oswald’s awareness of his rights and his desire to have legal counsel present during his questioning.

Lee Oswald. “These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything”
Reporter. “Did you shoot the President?”
Lee Oswald. “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir.”

Reporter. “Oswald did you shoot the President?”
Lee Oswald. “I didn’t shoot anybody sir I haven’t been told what I am here for.”
Reporter. “Do you have a lawyer?”
Lee Oswald. “No sir I don’t.”

Lee Oswald. “I would like some legal representation, but these police officers have not allowed me to, to have any. I don’t know what this is all about.”
Reporter. “Kill the President?”
Lee Oswald. “No sir I didn’t. People keep asking me that.”

Friday Night Press Conference.

Lee Oswald. “I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation. Well, I was uh questioned by a judge however I uh protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don’t know what this situation is about, no one has told me anything except I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that and I do request someone to come forward to give me a legal assistance.”
Reporter. “Did you kill the President?”
Lee Oswald. “No, I have not been charged with that in fact no one has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.”
Reporter. “You have been charged.”
Lee Oswald. “Sir?”
Reporter. “You have been charged.” (watch this)

William Whaley. “He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing, and they were trying to railroad him, and he wanted his lawyer.” (Volume II p. 261)

Gerald Hill. “He had previously in the theatre said he wanted his attorney.”
David Belin. “He had said this in the theatre?”
Gerald Hill. “Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights.” (Volume VII; p. 61)

Lawyers such as Percy Foreman and Joe Tonahill expressed doubts about the strength of the evidence against Oswald and believed that a fair trial would likely result in a verdict of not guilty due to insufficient evidence. Their opinions further support the contention that Oswald’s trial would have been an exercise in futility and lacked the substance necessary for a fair determination of his guilt or innocence.

Lawyer Percy Foreman. “Authorities are running a serious risk of jeopardizing their case against Oswald by failing to observe his constitutional rights.” He went on to state: “Officials may have already committed reversible error in the case by permitting the accused to undergo more than 24 hours of detention without benefit of legal counsel.” Citing grounds for reversal, Foreman further asserted: “Under recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, federal procedural guarantees must be observed in state prosecutions. Their abridgement can be grounds for a reversal or even a conviction. This is a new law. They could get a conviction in Texas and get it thrown out on appeal, but it takes a long time for these dim-witted law enforcement officers to realize it.” (St Louis Post Dispatch, 11/24/63)

Joe Tonahill, Counsel for Jack Ruby.

Interviewer. “Mr. Tonahill, what, in your opinion, would have been the outcome of a trial, had Oswald gone to trial?”
Joe Tonahill. “In my opinion…. Under Texas Law…a trial judge, trying him… the judge would have had a weak circumstantial evidence charge to go to the jury. In my opinion he wouldn’t have had that. He would have been forced to instruct the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, on the grounds of insufficient evidence.” (watch this)
“At about 5:30 p.m. [Oswald] was visited by the president of the Dallas Bar Association with whom he spoke for about 5 minutes.” (WCR; p199.)

President of the Dallas Bar Association Louis Nichols:
“I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, well, he really didn’t know what it was all about, that he was, had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado.” When asked who Oswald wanted to represent him, Oswald confirmed, “Either Mr. Abt or someone who is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. I am a member of that organisation, and I would like to have somebody who is a member of that organisation represent me.” Nichols replied, “I’m sorry, I don’t know anybody who is a member of that organization. Although, as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know are members.” Oswald stated that, “if I can find a lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I believe, and believes in my innocence, then paused a little bit, and went on a little bit and said, as much as he can, I might let him represent me.” Nichols testified to the likelihood that he personally could have represented Oswald, “I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn’t anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don’t practice criminal law.” (Volume VII; p. 325-332)

Oswald’s distress should have been alarming to Nichols. However, it remains unclear why, following their meeting, Nichols didn’t reach out to Mr. Olds to inform him about Oswald’s plea for ACLU representation? Press conference conducted by Nichols in which he confirms Oswald’s request to be represented by John Abt or a lawyer from the ACLU: watch here.

Oswald had explicitly expressed his concerns, not only to the Nichols but also directly to the press, about his maltreatment at the hands of the Dallas Police. He protested that he wanted his, “basic fundamental hygienic rights, I mean like a shower… and… uh… clothes.” (watch here)

President of the Dallas ACLU Gregory Lee Olds.

Gregory Lee Olds. “I called the police department to inquire about this [counsel for Oswald], and finally talked to Captain Fritz, Capt. Will Fritz, and was-raised the question, and he said, “No” that Oswald had been given the opportunity and declined.”
Sam Stern. “Excuse me. Did Captain Fritz say that Oswald did not want counsel at that time, or that he was trying to obtain his own counsel?”
Gregory Lee Olds. “What I was told that he had been given the opportunity and had not made any requests… Captain King [also had] assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.” (Volume VII p.323)

Denied legal representation, Oswald’s opportunity to mount a defense in the face of hours of questioning was drastically compromised. Compounded by severe media bias and prejudiced public statements from Dallas police and prosecution officials, his chances of receiving a fair trial rapidly dwindled. Here is an object lesson in the presumption of innocence, the right to legal counsel, and providing an impartial platform for every accused person to defend themselves.

Louis Nichols, despite publicly stating and testifying that he did not practice criminal law, was paradoxically allowed to meet with Oswald. In contrast, Gregory Lee Olds, the President of the Dallas ACLU whom Oswald had sought for representation, was unequivocally denied access on the grounds that Oswald did not want legal counsel. This puzzling discrepancy further underscores the gravity of Oswald’s situation and the troubling injustice perpetuated in his case.

The disturbing parallels between Oswald and the other suspects prosecuted by Wade become apparent when examining public statements made by Craig Watkins, who took over as DA from Wade in 2006. Watkins asserted “There was a cowboy kind of mentality, and the reality is that kind of approach is archaic, racist, elitist and arrogant.”

Detractors of Wade, including Watkins, have pointed out numerous problems with cases prosecuted under Wade’s tenure. Allegations of shoddy investigations ignored evidence, and lack of transparency with defense lawyers paint a grim picture of the justice system under Wade. His promotion system, which allegedly favoured prosecutors with high conviction rates, has come under intense scrutiny. As Michelle Moore, a Dallas County public defender and president of the Innocence Project of Texas, observed, “in hindsight, we’re finding lots of places where detectives in those cases, they kind of trimmed the corners to just get the case done.”

John Stickels, a criminology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, identifies a culture of “win at all costs” as a key problem. In his view, once a suspect was arrested under Wade’s tenure, their guilt was often presumed.”When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty. I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys.”

The parallels between Wade’s regime and the miscarriage of justice in Oswald’s case is compelling.

As a result: “No other county in America — and almost no state, for that matter — has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986.”

18. Rush to Judgement.

“Had I known at the outset, when I wrote that article for the National Guardian, that I was going to be so involved that I would close my law practice, abandon my work, abandon my political career, be attacked by the very newspapers in New York City which used to hail my election to the state legislature; had I known that – had I known that I was going to be placed in the lookout books, so that when I come back into the country, I’m stopped by the immigration authorities – only in America, but no other country in the world – that my phones would be tapped, that not only would the FBI follow me around at lecture engagements, but present to the Warren Commission extracts of what I said at various lectures – I am not sure, if I knew all that, that I ever would have written that article in the first place.” Mark Lane. (watch here)

J. Edgar Hoover and Nicholas Katzenbach, the Deputy Attorney General, revealed their pressing concern about convincing the public of Lee Oswald’s sole guilt in the immediate aftermath of his murder.

J Edgar Hoover, 11/24/63. “The thing I am concerned about and so is Mr. Katzenbach is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

Nicholas Katzenbach, 11/25/63. “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”

This haste in determining Oswald’s guilt following his preventable death exemplified an alarming compromise between public reassurance and the respect for essential legal principles. The urgent need to alleviate public anxiety overshadowed the necessity for a thorough investigation and due process. This swift conviction of Oswald exposed a troubling discrepancy between societal demands during a crisis and the principles of justice, casting a pall over the entire case.

Unquestionably, every US citizen, is constitutionally granted the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. However, these inherent rights were hastily disregarded in Oswald’s case, representing not only an individual miscarriage of justice but also inhibiting a broader, more comprehensive investigation.

The hasty conclusions drawn by officials such as Hoover, Katzenbach, and Dallas law enforcement egregiously compromised the fundamental legal maxim of ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty.’ This resulted in a severe infringement of Oswald’s civil and constitutional rights. The abrupt demise of Oswald exacerbated this problem, forever eliminating the possibility of a trial and thus amplifying the precipitous rush to judgment. As a result, this premature rush towards a verdict prompted the untimely abandonment of several potential investigative pathways. These could have included exploring the potential involvement of accomplices, delving into various avenues of conspiracy, and thoroughly assessing Oswald’s claimed innocence.

19. Are You Lee Oswald? Or Alek Hidell?

Commission Conclusion. “The arresting officers found a forged selective service card with a picture of Oswald and the name “Alek J. Hidell” in Oswald’s billfold.”(WCR; p. 181)

What is the chain of custody of the Selective Service Card?

Immediately following his arrest at the Texas Theatre, Oswald was placed in a squad car heading to city hall. Officers Gerald Hill, Bob Carrol, Paul Bentley, C.T. Walker, K.E. Lyons, and the suspect Lee H. Oswald were all present in the squad car.

The statements and reports of the witnesses.

Gerald Hill. 11/22/63, NBC News.
Gerald Hill.“The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.”
Reporter.“What was his name on the billfold?”
Gerald Hill. “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D.” (Volume XXIV; p. 804/805)

4/8/64. In his testimony to the Warren Commission. Hill said he first heard the name Hidell in the car transporting Oswald to the station from Paul Bentley.: “I can’t specifically say that is what it was…but that sounds like the name I heard.” Hill said they had two different identifications and two different names. (Volume VII, p. 58)

Paul Bentley. 12/2/63. Report To Chief Curry.
“On the way to city hall I removed the suspect’s wallet and obtained his name…I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. (Volume XXIV; p. 234)

Paul Bentley was not called to testify.

Bob Carrol provided testimony to the Commission on two separate occasions. The first testimony took place on April 3, 1964, while the second testimony occurred on April 9, 1964. During his second appearance, Carrol specifically mentioned the ‘Hidell’ card. It is reasonable to infer that he was called back to testify because of this particular detail.

David Belin. “Was he ever asked his name?”
Bob Carroll. “Yes, sir; he was asked his name.”
David Belin. “Did he give his name?”
Bob Carroll. “He gave, the best I recall, I wasn’t able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don’t recall what the other one was.”
David Belin. “Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?”
Bob Carroll. “Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.” (Volume VII; p.25)

Officer C. T. Walker. 4/8/64.

David Belin.“You recall any other conversation that you had with him, or not?”
Officer Walker. “No; he was just denying it.” “About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, why don’t you see if he has any identification. Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect’s left hip pocket and said, “Yes, he has a billfold,” and took it out. I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card. And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don’t remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.”
David Belin. “Anything else about him on your way to the police station?”
Officer Walker. “He was real calm. He was extra calm. He wasn’t a bit excited or nervous or anything. That was all the conversation I can recall going down.”
David Belin. “After you got down there, what did you do with him?”
Officer Walker. “We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him in this room. I put him in the room, and he said, “Let the uniform officers stay with him.” And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.”
David Belin. “Do you remember what kind of card it was?”
Officer Walker. “Just an identification card. I don’t recall what it was.”
David Belin. “All right.”
Officer Walker. “And I told him, “That is your real name, isn’t it?”
David Belin. “He, had he earlier told you his name was Lee Harvey Oswald?”
Officer Walker. “I believe he had.”

K. E. Lyons was not called to testify.

12/2/63. Reports To Chief Curry.
The arresting officers present in the squad car – K.E. Lyons, Bob Carroll, and C.T. Walker – provided reports to Chief Curry that intriguingly made no mention of the Selective Service card baring the name Hidell. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact, p.186)

According to the testimony of Dallas Police officer W. M. Potts, he along with two other officers, E. L. Cunningham, Bill Senkel and Justice of The Peace David Johnston, went out to 1026 North Beckley shortly after 2pm on 11/22/63. Potts testified that:

Joesph Ball. “And you went out to where?”
Walter Potts. “1026 North Beckley”.
Joesph Ball. “What happened when you got there?””
Walter Potts. “We got there, and we talked to this Mrs.–I believe her name was Johnson.”
Joesph Ball. “Mrs. A. C. Johnson?”
Walter Potts. “Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Roberts.”
Joesph Ball. “Earlene Roberts?”
Walter Potts. “Yes; and they didn’t know a Lee Harvey Oswald or an Alex Hidell either one” (Volume VII; p. 197)

However, the mention of the name Hidell by the attending officers is disputed by witnesses who were present in the rooming house on November 22, 1963. When the police arrived at the Beckley rooming house, both the owner Mrs. Johnson and the manager Mrs Robert said they were only asked about Oswald, not Hidell. And they said that Oswald registered as O. H. Lee. (Volume X, pp. 303-04; Volume X p. 295; Volume Vi p. 438)

In a report by Justice Johnston on 11/22/63, listing all of Lee Oswald’s particulars, Justice Johnston writes: Alias, O. H. Lee- 1026 N Beckley. No mention of A. J. Hidell. (Volume XX; p. 313)

Detective Richard Sims testified that he had taken off Oswald’s identification bracelet before administering his paraffin test on November 22, 1963.

Joseph Ball.“Did you see any identification bracelet on Oswald?”
Richard Sims. “Yes, sir; he had an identification bracelet.”
Joseph Ball. “Did he have that on at the time of the showup?”
Richard Sims. “Yes.”
Joseph Ball. “Did you ever remove that?”
Richard Sims “Yes, sir; when they were getting his paraffin cast on his hands.”
Joseph Ball. “And what did you do with that identification bracelet?”
Richard Sims. “I placed it in the property room cardsheet.”
Joseph Ball. “Did you examine that identification bracelet?”
Richard Sims. “Yes, sir”.
Joseph Ball. “What did it have on it, if you remember?”
Richard Sims. “It had his name on it.” (Volume VII; p. 174)

Challenging the Existence of the Hidell Card on November 22, 1963.
1. Upon his arrest and subsequent detention, Lee Oswald had on a identification bracelet inscribed with the name ‘Lee’. Given this fact, it seems perplexing how the Dallas Police could have possibly thought his name was Alek?
2. The alias- ‘Hidell’ does not appear in any of the records or statements from the Police, FBI, or Secret Service dated November 22, 1963. On the other hand, the alias ‘O. H. Lee’ was prominently circulated among the media on the day of the assassination.
3. Upon the Dallas Police’s arrival at 1026 North Beckley, around 2pm on November 22, 1963, three separate witnesses confirm that the Dallas officers, inquired solely about a Lee Harvey Oswald. There was no mention of ‘Alek J. Hidell’.
4. Oswald’s possession of the Service card, featuring his picture and a name directly linked to the Carcano stashed on the sixth floor, raises some perplexing questions. If Oswald were solely culpable, why would he take the gamble of retaining this potentially condemning evidence?
5. What proof is there that Oswald made use of the Select Service card prior to the assassination?
6. Has there been any testimony of anyone having seen this ID in Oswald’s possession prior to November 22, 1963?
7. When and where was this ID card manufactured?
8. Did any fingerprints found on the card match those of Oswald’s?
9. Were any photographs taken of this card on November 22, 1963?
10. Was this card itemized on an inventory of Oswald’s personal effects at the time of his booking on November 22, 1963?
11. Selective Service Cards did not typically include the holder’s picture. The presence of a photograph would inevitably raise suspicion to anyone who saw the ID.
12. The card appears to be a complex forgery, necessitating the forger’s access to high-quality equipment like a professional-grade camera, often found in photo labs or printing facilities, and a typewriter. (Volume IV; p. 388)
13. Commission Conclusion: “Two typewriters were used in this typing, as shown by differences in the design of the typed figure 4.” The Commission however made no attempt to trace the typewriters, alleged to have been used in the creation of the forged Hidell card. Establishing Oswald’s access to these machines would have been instrumental in validating that he could have created the forged Hidell card. As noted in forensic examination principles, “To determine whether a particular typewriter produced a questioned document, examiners search for individual characteristics that can include misaligned or damaged letters, abnormal spacing before or after certain letters, and variations in the pressure applied to the page by some letters. For example, certain letters can have telltale nicks or spurs that are imprinted on the page, or they can lean to one side or print slightly higher or lower than the others. These defects can be compared to a sample from a suspect typewriter and thus offer powerful individualizing characteristics.” (WCR;p. 572) (see this)
14. The Commission relates to the creator of the card as the “counterfeiter” not specifically to Oswald. (WCR; p. 571)
15. The Selective Service Card, along with the introduction of the alias ‘Hidell’, only emerges in the case on November 23, 1963. Interestingly, this is the same day the FBI linked the alias to a mail-order purchase for the Mannlicher Carcano C2766. Yet this correlation appears a full day after the alleged finding of the card. The timing inconsistency not only impacts the chain of custody but also coincides with the sudden connection of the alias to the mail order purchase. This raises substantial questions about the evidence handling process, the chronology of the case, and the overall integrity of the chain of custody. (Meagher, pp. 181-200)
20. Could Marina have testified against Lee?

The question of whether Marina Oswald could have legally testified against her husband, Lee Oswald, raises interesting forensic considerations for the case. Under Texas law, spouses are generally permitted to serve as witnesses for each other in criminal cases. However, a crucial exception exists they cannot testify against each other unless one spouse is being prosecuted for an offence committed against the other. In the context of Oswald’s hypothetical trial, Marina’s testimony would have been excluded based on this spousal privilege. This means that the controversial backyard photographs, which were allegedly linked to Lee, could not have been admitted into evidence to be used against him. This is because Marina’s testimony, which was the sole source of corroboration for the photographs, would have been inadmissible due to the spousal privilege. (see this)

Go to Part 1 of 6

Go to Part 3 of 6

Go to Part 4 of 6

Go to Part 5 of 6

Go to Part 6 of 6
September 24, 2023
Part 1 of 6: No Motive, plus the Silenced Witnesses

“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” John Fitzgerald Kennedy

For as long as I can remember, I have held a profound admiration for President John F. Kennedy. I find Kennedy’s firm leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis particularly admirable. Kennedy chose peaceful negotiation with the Soviet Union to the dismay of the aggressive, first-strike demands of his hawkish Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of their plans for a pre-emptive first strike on the Soviets “involved the use of 170 atomic and hydrogen bombs in Moscow alone, intending to annihilate every major city in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths. Sickened by this plan, Kennedy walked out of the briefing mid-presentation. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalled, Kennedy had a strange look on his face as he muttered: And we call ourselves the human race.”

This moment encapsulates the essence of what I admire in John Kennedy: his ability to look beyond immediate power struggles, to consider the profound human consequences, and to act with both wisdom and compassion. His leadership not only averted a catastrophe but also established an enduring example that continues to inspire those, like myself, who believe in compassionate leadership. His actions provide a profound lesson that vibrates at the very core of our collective human values.

However, the radiant legacy of President Kennedy, is tinged with an unsettling undertone of disquiet. His unresolved and tragic assassination on November 22, 1963, marked a pivotal moment in American history, signalling for many, the onset of a profound disenchantment with the government. This disquiet was not an isolated sentiment, but rather the beginning of a troubling pattern.

The subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr., on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy, on June 5, 1968, reinforced this disillusionment. These men were not just political leaders; they were emblematic of the very ideals of social justice, equality, and moral integrity that defined the ethos of the 1960s. Their deaths were more than personal tragedies; they symbolized the loss of hope itself.

The spectre of Lee Harvey Oswald looms large in the American psyche. Despite his emphatic proclamation of innocence, he was denied the opportunity to establish it in a court of law. Murdered while in the hands of the Dallas Police, his voice became another eerie echo in the symphony of uncertainties surrounding The President’s murder.

A mere two weeks following the killings of Kennedy, Oswald and patrolman J. D. Tippit, the Warren Commission was convened with the mandate to bring clarity and resolution to the tumultuous circumstances surrounding Kennedy’s death. However, this so-called ‘investigation’ did little to assuage public mistrust. Critics argue that the Commission’s conclusions relied too heavily on fragile circumstantial evidence against the conveniently deceased Oswald, who had no opportunity to defend himself. The narrative was tied up in a bow, packaged neatly for a nation eager for answers. But many Americans remained unconvinced, seeing instead the enforcement of a preordained conclusion rather than the revelation of truth.

In this multi-part essay, I’ve assembled 60 critical points—both facts and queries—that not only challenge the Commission’s primary conclusions but also strongly argue for Oswald’s complete innocence. The widely accepted narrative that portrays Oswald as the assassin begins to crumble under rigorous scrutiny, especially when faced with a torrent of evidence teeming with inconsistencies and contamination. As we mark the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, the need for a fresh, unbiased investigation becomes increasingly urgent. It’s a striking paradox that the most intensely debated case in human history seems to have sidestepped a comprehensive investigation. As Robert Groden aptly put it, “Lee Harvey Oswald is a question mark to history. The debate is often raised, was Lee Harvey Oswald alone as the assassin or was he part of a conspiracy? The question is never raised, is it possible that he didn’t do it at all?”

This exploration does not intend to pinpoint the true perpetrators of President Kennedy’s assassination, uncover the exact hideouts of the killers, unmask the orchestrators, or reveal those who facilitated the crime. As the late Mark Lane once succinctly put it, “That really calls for some speculation on my part, I think that area has been pre-empted by the Warren Commission, I prefer to stay in the area of fact.” Honouring his words, this work strives not to speculate, but to illuminate the facts. It aims to cast light on the glaring inconsistencies within the Warren Commission’s narrative and to build a compelling case for Lee Oswald’s total innocence, grounded in factual analysis and empirical evidence.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Robert Francis Kennedy. Full speech (Thirteen Days; p. 106, JFK And the Unspeakable; p. 236/237); check this article, this video, this speech and this video.

1. What Was Lee’s Motive?

Commission Conclusion. “The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” (WCR; p. 22)

Throughout the past 60 years, no substantial motive has been ascertained to elucidate why Lee Oswald is purported to have assassinated President John F. Kennedy. The Commission lent credibility to theories such as, “Oswald had a deep-rooted resentment of authority”, questioning “Oswald’s ability to enter into meaningful relationships” and, the most fanciful of all, speculated on Oswald’s “urge to try and find a place in history.”

However, these suppositions fall significantly short of establishing a solid motive, given their lack of concrete evidence in support. Nicholas Katzenbach, the acting attorney general, cognizant of the challenges a motiveless Oswald presented to the official narrative, emphasized in his renowned Katzenbach memo, “Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off”. If Oswald truly possessed an “urge to try and find a place in history”, why would he subsequently deny the accusations levelled against him? Oswald fervently professed his innocence, by proclaiming: “I don’t know what dispatches you people have been given but I emphatically deny these charges…I have not committed any acts of violence.” (WCR; p.23) (watch this video and read this document)

There is an abundance of testimony on the record which strongly indicates that Lee Oswald fostered profound admiration and unambiguous support for President Kennedy:

Francis Martello. “He gave me the impression that he seemed to favor President Kennedy more than he did Khrushchev in his statement…he showed in his manner of speaking that he liked the President.” (Volume X; p. 60)

Sam Ballen. “I just can’t see his having any venom towards President Kennedy.” (Volume IX; p. 48)

Jeanne De Mohrenschildt. “I don’t think he ever said anything against, and whatever the President was doing, Kennedy was doing, Lee was completely exactly with the same ideas, exactly.” (Volume IV; p. 325)

George De Mohrenschildt. “As far as I am concerned, he was an admirer of President Kennedy. I thought that Kennedy was doing a very good job with regard to the racial problem, you know…And he [Oswald] also agreed with me, [Oswald stated] Yes, yes, yes; I think he is an excellent President, young, full of energy, full of good ideas.” (Volume IX; p. 255)

Albert Jenner. “Did Lee ever speak of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy?”
Lillian Murret. “He said one time that he thought Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy was a very fine person, and that he admired her for going around with her husband, and so forth, but he never spoke about that again, or never said anything about it. In fact, I think he said he liked him.”
Albert Jenner. “Liked President Kennedy?”
Lillian Murret. “Yes.”(Volume VIII; p. 153)

Marilyn Murret. “I can’t remember whether it was, if that was before or if it was on that program, where he said something complimentary about Kennedy.” (Volume VIII; p. 173)

Paul Gregory. “Whenever he would speak about Khrushchev, Kennedy would naturally come into mind, and he expressed admiration of Kennedy. Both he and Marina would say, Nice young man. I never heard him say anything derogatory about Kennedy. He seemed to admire the man, because I remember they had a copy of Life magazine which was always in their living room, and it had Kennedy’s picture on it, or I believe Kennedy or someone else, and he always expressed what I would interpret as admiration for Kennedy.”

Wesley Liebeler. “Can you recall any specific details concerning his remarks about Kennedy or the conversation that you had with him concerning Kennedy?”

Paul Gregory. “No, just that one time, as I can remember in their apartment that we did look at this picture of Kennedy, and Marina said, He looks like a nice young man. And Lee said something, yes, he is a good leader, or something, as I remember, was a positive remark about Kennedy.”

Lee Oswald. “My wife and I like the Presidential family. They are interesting people. I am not a malcontent. Nothing irritated me about the President.” (JFK Assassination File; p. 123)

2. Houston vs Elm?

Why would Oswald choose to shoot the President on Elm Street, where the view was more difficult and obstructed, instead of maximising his chances of success by targeting President Kennedy as he was approaching the Texas School Book Depository from Houston Street, which offered an unobstructed view? From a logical standpoint, the shot from Houston Street would seem to be the most advantageous for a lone assassin to take.

3. Four Is the Magic Number?

Why would Oswald choose to attempt the assassination with only four bullets, considering that the ammunition clip of the Carcano could hold a maximum of six, with one in the chamber totalling seven? How did Oswald determine that such a limited amount of ammunition would be sufficient for successful assassination and subsequent ‘escape’ from the Texas School Book Depository?

4. The Carcano’s Assembly Tool.

What tool did Oswald use to assemble the disassembled Carcano prior to the assassination? Is there any physical or pictorial evidence in the record which supports the assertion that Oswald utilised a specific tool, such as a screwdriver or dime coin, for assembly purposes? FBI Agent Cortland Cunningham testified to the Commission, that he could assemble the Mannlicher with a dime coin within 6 minutes:

Joseph Ball. “Let’s take it out of the sack and put it before the Commission. Do you need any special tools to assemble this rifle?”
Cortland Cunningham. “No, sir.”
Joseph Ball. “I notice you have a screwdriver there. Can you assemble it without the use of a screwdriver?”
Cortland Cunningham. “Yes, sir.”
Joseph Ball. “What can you use?”
Cortland Cunningham. “Any object that would fit the slots on the five screws that retain the stock to the action.”
Joseph Ball. “Could you do it with a 10-cent piece?”
Cortland Cunningham. “Yes, sir.”
Joseph Ball. “Will you do that – about how long will it take you?”
Cortland Cunningham. “I know I can do it, but I have never been timed as far as using a dime. I have been timed using a screwdriver, which required a little over 2 minutes.”
Joseph Ball. “2 minutes with a screwdriver. Try it with the dime and let’s see how long it takes. Okay. Start now. Six minutes.”
Cortland Cunningham. “I think I can improve on that.”
Joseph Ball. “And the only tool you used was a 10-cent piece?”
Cortland Cunningham. “That is correct.” (Volume II; p.252)

There’s no doubt that the late, esteemed English researcher Ian Griggs had delved extensively into this area of research. He conducted numerous experiments, focusing on the assembly and disassembly of the Mannlicher-Carcano. Here’s what Ian had to offer on this crucial aspect of the case:

“Well, firstly, it is no simple task to reassemble this rifle. Certainly not as simple as those glib words in the Warren Report or that deliberately misleading CE 1304 photograph would suggest. Secondly, whilst it was reasonably easy to tighten the screws with a screwdriver, it was certainly no simple task using a dime coin. The coin is thin enough to fit the recessed head of the screws but due to its tiny diameter, about two thirds of an inch, there is hardly any leverage, and itmakes it very difficult to exert sufficient pressure to tighten the screws sufficiently.”

Ian also goes on to conclude that:

“Finally, I had practiced many times before undertaking my ‘real attempt’ at putting the gun together. I knew precisely where each part was and in what order it should be fitted. I knew exactly when I had to change position of the rifle from horizontal (across my lap) to vertical (between my knees)”.

“There is no evidence that Oswald had either the time or the opportunity to carry out ‘dry runs’ or rehearsals. How long did it take me to reassemble the Mannlicher-Carcano? Well, my best time was two minutes and four seconds.”

“I have to confess that I admitted defeat using a dime coin. Having begun several times and fallen hopelessly behind the clock, I have to look on SA Cunningham’s time of six minutes with a certain degree of skepticism. Trying to put that rifle together using just a dime resulted in me sustaining two blood-blisters on my fingers and a small cut on the joint of my right thumb.” (No Case To Answer; pp. 165-172)

Given the gravity of the situation and Ian’s account, which stands as a rebuttal to Cunningham’s testimony, it would seem highly improbable that an aspiring assassin would rely on something as basic as a dime coin for rifle assembly. If Oswald was permitted to stand trial, what tool would DA Henry Wade have presented to the jury as evidence to support the charge that Oswald assembled the weapon?

Ian Griggs demonstrates the process of assembling a Mannlicher Carcano in this video.

5. How Did Oswald Wipe Down the Carcano?

Commission Conclusion. “An FBI fingerprint expert testified that the poor quality of the metal and wooden parts would cause them to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely.” (WCR; p. 647)

Drawing on the logical assumption that an individual would instinctively seek to erase incriminating evidence, like fingerprints from a weapon used in an assassination, the theory that Oswald thoroughly cleaned the heavily oiled Carcano post-assassination warrants careful exploration. Crucial points of inquiry include the existence of solid evidence supporting this claim, Oswald’s potential methods for fingerprint removal, particularly considering the weapon’s oily surface, and the likelihood of oil residue on any cloth or piece of clothing he may have employed for the task. Is there any tangible or photographic evidence which would substantiate this assertion? However, it is crucial to note that even if the testimony regarding the poor quality of the metal and wooden parts of the Carcano causing them to absorb moisture and make clear prints unlikely is true, Oswald would have had no way of knowing this. This further reinforces the likelihood that he would have sought to eliminate any potential fingerprints from the weapon.

6. Lee Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy?

“They will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen, just to throw the public off.” Extremist Joseph Milteer.

Commission Conclusion. “Shortly after the Assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor.” (WCR; p. 19)

Firstly, was Lee Oswald capable of independently devising and executing the assassination of President Kennedy? Popular narratives often depict Oswald as an irrational, volatile individual consumed by political fanaticism, eager to commit political assassination, indifferent to the costs he might incur personally or for his family. Contrary to these characterizations, the evidence strongly indicates that Oswald was an intelligent, articulate, 24-year-old introvert. A man who was more passive than aggressive, a devoted father, an admirer of John Kennedy, who possessed ties to intelligence agencies, and bolstered by a carefully constructed legend, was unknowingly turned into the perfect patsy.

The following testimonies offer insightful perspectives that may shed some light on these questions.

Wesley Liebeler. “When you subsequently heard that Oswald had been arrested in connection with the assassination, were you surprised?”
Francis Martello. “Yes, sir; I was, I was very much surprised…he did not give me the impression of being a violent individual. He was a very passive type of an individual. He did not impress me at the time I interviewed him as a violent person by any of the responses to questions, by observing his physical make-up. Not in any way, shape, or form did he appear to me as being violent in any way…as far as ever dreaming or thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged that he has done, I would bet my head on a chopping block that he wouldn’t do it.” (Volume X; p. 60/61)

Sam Stern. “Did you get any indication that he was a dangerous individual or that he was, potentially, a violent individual?”
John Quigley. “Absolutely none at all.”(Volume IV; p. 437)

Wesley Liebeler. “Were you surprised when you learned that Oswald had been arrested in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?”
Sam Ballen. “I told my wife that evening that there must have been some mistake, that I didn’t believe this chap was capable of this kind of thing, and she said what do you mean? she said they picked him up and got the gun. I said Oswald wasn’t that sort of guy. I told my wife that if you lined up 50 individuals. the one person who would stand out as being suspicious or strange would-be Lee Harvey Oswald, but I was very surprised when Oswald was arrested.” (Volume IX; p. 54/55)

Buell Wesley Frazier. “He [Lee] liked children very much. That is one of the things that I could get Lee to talk about…the children of the neighbourhood, all of them at one time or another seemed to find their way up to the Paine house, where Lee lived, to play with him and his daughter.”. (watch this video)

Ruth Paine. “The idea of his having shot the President, skews what everyone thinks, it seems to me, we forget how ordinary he was. He would play with his children and with mine at the house on weekends…he seemed concerned about his little girls—very much so.”. (watch this video)

Will Fritz. “I think he was above average for intelligence. I know a lot of people call him a nut all the time but he didn’t talk like a nut.” (Volume IV; p. 240)

Robert Oswald. “The Lee Harvey Oswald I knew would not have killed anybody.” (Volume I; p. 314)

The same meme is expressed by the following witnesses, Lillian Murret, (Vol. 8, p. 154; John Murret, Vol. 7 pp. 193-94; Marilyn Murret, Vol. 8, pp. 176-77; Adrian Alba, Vol. 10, pp. 227-28; George Bouhe, Vol. 8, pp. 376-77, Elena Hall, Vol. 8, p. 405)

Now that we have established that extreme violence was not a hallmark of Lee Oswald’s nature, we’re led into the speculative territory for our ensuing discourse. If we consider the possibility that Oswald was the mastermind and executor of the assassination, we are immediately faced with pressing questions about his plan for the weapon purportedly used in the crime. Why, for instance, would Oswald opt for a traceable rifle for such a high-profile assassination, only to partially conceal it behind boxes at the crime scene? Oswald surely would have understood that if the rifle weren’t discovered by the Dallas Police, there would be little to tangibly link him to the President’s murder. Officer Seymour Weitzman’s testimony provides a glimpse:“When we got up to the fifth or sixth floor, I forget, I believe it was the sixth floor, the chief deputy or whoever was in charge of the floor, I forget the officer’s name, from the sheriff’s office, said he wanted that floor torn apart. He wanted that gun, and it was there somewhere”Given that the rifle was ultimately located on the sixth floor, where it was always going to be discovered, it raises serious doubts about the wisdom of using and discarding the Carcano in such a manner.

Moreover, it seems that Oswald devoted significant time and resources to concealing the weapon. As stated in Seymour Weitzman’s testimony, the Carcano was well hidden, shielded by an array of boxes, which rendered its detection challenging. In Weitzman’s words, “I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple of times before we thoroughly searched the building.” Nevertheless, the question arises – where is the substantiating evidence that Oswald indeed performed this act of concealment? (Weitzman Testimony; Volume VII; p.107).

One might ponder, why didn’t Oswald choose to use an untraceable rifle for the attempted assassination? Also why did he choose to stage the assassination attempt from his workplace, the Texas School Book Depository, which significantly eroded any possibility of retaining anonymity as the assassin? More perplexing is his alleged decision to overlook the Dal-Tex building, which, located conveniently across Elm Street, offered a superior view compared to the southeast corner window of the Depository. Even more interesting, the discovery of an untraceable weapon in that building would not have directly implicated any specific individual, thereby preserving the identity of any suspected assassin.

Indeed, it is compelling to consider what would have transpired had ‘Oswald’s’ purported assassination attempt failed? What would he have done with the damning Carcano in such a scenario? With the odds of failure being monumental, considering the defective surplus World War II rifle, Oswald’s atrocious marksmanship, and the near two-decade-old ammunition in play in 1963, the prospect for successful assassination appears minuscule.

Considering all these factors, the endeavour could be seen as the actions of a madman. This characterization starkly contrasts with the facts that Oswald was a rational, intelligent human being. In the final analysis, the use and subsequent discarding of the ‘Hidell’ Carcano appears nonsensical. Its only logical purpose in being on the sixth floor seems to be for its inevitable discovery in the aftermath of the assassination, thereby serving as the crucial link tying Oswald to the murder.

7. The Credibility of Howard Brennan.

“Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle.” (Volume XXIII, p. 916.)

Commission Conclusion. “The information for the initial broadcast most probably came from Howard Brennan, who saw Oswald in the window when he was firing the rifle” (WCR; p. 649)

However, there is evidence in the record that challenges the Commission conclusion. One important question raised is whether DA Henry Wade would have relied on Howard Brennan’s testimony as far as being able to clearly identify him as the source for the initial broadcast?

Inspector Sawyer, who broadcast the description at 12:45 pm, 15 minutes after the President’s murder, stated that “It’s unknown whether he [the suspect] is still in the building or not known if he was there in the first place”. This raises doubts about it being Brennan’s description. Also, if Brennan told the police that the man he saw was firing from the sixth floor then why didn’t the police immediately converge upon the window? Sheriff’s Deputy Luke Mooney put his discovery of the area “at around 1 o’clock.” (Volume XXIII; p. 917; Volume III; p. 285; Volume XIX; p. 528/529)

Sawyer testified, “That [the] description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building and claimed to have been able to see the man up there”. However, Sawyer did not know the witness’s name or any details about him, except that he was white and neither young nor old. (Volume IV; p. 322) Mooney stated that he was the only person on the 6^th floor when he discovered the expended shells. At that point he yelled out the window to Captain Fritz and Sheriff Decker. And that is when the crime lab officers and Fritz came up the stairs. Mooney said this was around 1 PM. (Vol. XXIII, p. 917; Vol.III, p. 285, Vol. XiX, pp. 528-29)

It is important to note that Brennan testified that he gave his description to Secret Service Agent Forrest V. Sorrels, not to Herbert Sawyer. (Volume III; p. 145) Agent Sorrels, on the other hand, testified that he did not arrive back in Dealey Plaza until 12:55 pm, 10 minutes after the initial broadcast went out. (Volume VII; p. 347/348)

It was much later when the Commission asked for help from J. Edgar Hoover in ascertaining whether or not Brennan was the source of the broadcast. However, Hoover replied on November 12, 1964, “With regard to your suggestion that we determine the precise sources of the description of the suspected assassin broadcast by the Dallas Police Department…the Dallas Police Department advised the broadcast was initiated on the basis of a description furnished by an unidentified citizen who had observed an individual approximating Oswald’s description running from the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the assassination. It is not felt that recontact with the Dallas Police Department on the same matter would be justified at this late date.” The FBI did not pursue the matter further, as they could not produce any evidence regarding the identity of the individual. (Mary Ferrell Foundation)

Commission Conclusion. “Brennan also testified that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he viewed in a police line-up on the night of the assassination, was the man he saw fire the shots from the sixth-floor window of the Depository Building.” (WCR; p.143.)

In addition to the above problems, persistent question marks remain regarding the circumstances behind Brennan’s description and his credibility as a witness. Brennan testified seeing the gunman come to the window before President Kennedy arrived, and he could see most of his body, from his hips up, but during the shooting he could only see him from the belt up. Brennan testified that “Well, as it appeared to me, he was standing up and resting against the left windowsill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.” (Volume III; p. 144)

However, a significant problem arises when we consider his testimony in relation to the height of the window. At the time of the assassination, the window described by Brennan was only open to about waist height. So how could the man Brennan allegedly saw be standing up while firing at the President? Unless, of course, the Commission is suggesting an even more incredible scenario, than the Magic Bullet, where the gunman fires three bullets through unscathed glass?

The Commission backed Brennan. However, evidence in the record contradicts his claim. Hours after the President’s murder, Brennan participated in a police lineup to identify the suspect he had witnessed. Brennan testified that that prior to viewing the suspect he had seen Lee Harvey Oswald “on television…I saw his picture twice on television before I went down to the police station for a line-up.” In his affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff’s Office prior to the line-up, Brennan expressed his belief that “he could identify the man if he ever saw him again”.

However, even under these ideal circumstances, Brennan “was unable to make a positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald.” [This raises a significant question, did Brennan actually attend a line-up at all? This concern is further explored in point 24]. Subsequently, Brennan changed his story regarding his identification. In an interview with the FBI on December 17th, 1963, he stated “that he now can say that he is sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President’s assassination. He pointed out that he felt that a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 63, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit.”

Yet in an interview with the Bureau, on January 7, 1964, Brennan reverted to his original identification, stating that he had observed Oswald’s picture on television prior to the line-up but “it did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle.” In his testimony before the Commission, Brennan once again proclaims that Oswald was the man, he saw firing at the President.

In my opinion the intense public scrutiny and the desire to solve the crime quickly, from the Dallas Police, may have influenced Brennan’s perception and recollection of events. The possibility of confirmation bias cannot be ruled out, as Brennan may have felt compelled to identify Oswald as the gunman to support the emerging narrative. The pressure to conform to the prevailing theories can distort an eyewitness’s memory and testimony, further diminishing Brennan’s credibility. (WCR; p. 145. Volume III, p.147/148 p.155; Volume XXIV, p.203 p. 406.)

Another significant aspect of the Brennan saga relates to the suspect’s clothing. According to Captain Will Fritz’s notes, Oswald wore “a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button-down collar and gray-colored trousers” to work on November 22, 1963. Brennan’s description, on the other hand, was of “a man wearing light-colored clothing but definitely not a suit”. When Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald wore that day, he rejected it, stating that he expected it to be a shade lighter. He also noted that the man he observed did not have the same clothes on as Oswald. (see this document)

David Belin. “Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?”
Howard Brennan. “No, other than light, and a khaki color—maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color, not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.”
David Belin. “I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 150. [Oswald’s shirt] Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you make at this time any positive identification of any kind?”
Howard Brennan. “I would have expected it to be a little lighter—a shade or so lighter.”
David Belin. “Than Exhibit 150?”
Howard Brennan. “That is the best of my recollection.”
David Belin. “All right. Could you see the man’s trousers at all? Do you remember any color?”
Howard Brennan. “I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.”
David Belin. “What do you mean by that?“
Howard Brennan. “That he [Oswald] was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.”
David Belin “You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?”
Howard Brennan. “Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn’t have the same clothes on.” (Volume III, p. 161)

Given the contradictions in Brennan’s testimony and his inability to positively identify Oswald in the lineup, he was not a reliable witness. In contrast, there were other witnesses who observed a gunman on the sixth floor, such as Arnold Rowland, Caroline Walther, and Amos Euins. However, none of them could definitively identify that man as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Rowland described the man as having “had on a light shirt, a very light–colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T–shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans; I couldn’t tell from that. I didn’t see but a small portion.” (Volume II; p. 171).

Caroline Walther described “the man [as] wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair.” (Volume XXIV; p. 522.)

Amos Euins described the man he seen as having “a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand; you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.” (Volume II; p. 204)

Despite the chaotic nature of the assassination, no other witness has come forward to confirm Brennan’s observations or provide an independent account of the events he described. In a case of such historical significance, the absence of corroborating testimony weakens Brennan’s credibility and raises doubts about the accuracy of his recollection. This further raises an important question: why would the figure in the sixth-floor window draw so much attention to himself prior to the killing? One would assume that as a lone assassin, anonymity is crucial. The logical approach would be to stay well back, hidden from view, and emerge only at the precise moment the President came into sight. None of the actions attributed to this man seem to make sense unless, of course, the purpose was to be seen all along.

In an interview with author Jim Marrs, Sandy Speaker, who was Howard Brennan’s foreman, stated that after the assassination, Brennan disappeared for about three weeks. Speaker was unsure whether it was the Secret Service or the FBI, but federal authorities were involved. When Brennan returned, “he was a nervous wreck, and within a year, his hair had turned snow white.” Brennan refused to discuss the assassination thereafter, seemingly terrified. Speaker claimed that Brennan was coerced into saying what the federal authorities wanted him to say. (Crossfire; p. 25)

8. The Sequence of The Shots.

For a Lone Gunman to have accomplished the murder by utilizing the Carcano [C2766], there had to be an absolute minimum of 2.3 seconds necessary to operate the rifle between the shots in Dealey Plaza. The problem is that there are about 60 witnesses who heard a different pattern. These testimonies indicate that there were multiple assassins targeting President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. I will describe some in detail and then list the others. Let this testimony stand as an indictment of the Commission’s, preconceived, Lone Gunman theory. (WCR; p.117)

Lee Bowers.
MarkLane. “Mr. Bowers, how many shots did you hear?”
Lee Bowers. “There were three shots, and these were spaced with one shot a pause and two shots in very close order such as perhaps Knock, Knock Knock (Bowers taps table to simulate shots) almost on top of each other while there was some pause between the first and the second shots.”

Seymour Weitzman.
Joesph Ball. “How many shots did you hear”?
Weitzman. “Three distinct shots.”
Joseph Ball. “How were they spaced?”
Weitzman. “First one, then the second two seemed to be simultaneously.” (Volume VII; p. 106)

Roy Kellerman.
Arlen Specter. “Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you describe as sounding like a firecracker”
Roy Kellerman. “Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.”
Arlen Specter. “Are you able to say how many you heard?”
Roy Kellerman. “I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang-bang, bang” (Volume II; p. 76.)

William Greer.
Arlen Specter. “How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?
William Greer. “The last two just seemed to be simultaneously, one behind the other.(Volume II; p. 118.)

William Greer. “The last two were closer together than the first one. It seemed like the first one, then there was, you know, bang, bang, just right behind it almost.” (Volume II; p.130)

Linda Kay Willis.Mr. Leibeler. “Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there”?
Linda Kay Willis.Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. (Volume VII; p. 498.)

S.M. Holland.
Mr. Stern.“What number would that have been in the—”
Mr. Holland.“Well, that would—they were so close together“
Mr. Stern. “The second and third or the third and the fourth”?
Mr. Holland. “The third and the fourth. The third and the fourth.” (Volume VI; p. 244)

Governor Connally. “…It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.” (Volume IV; p. 134.)

Mary Ann Moorman.
Johnny Cairns. “Can you remember what the sequence of the shots were?
Mary Ann Moorman. “Noise, brief second then noise, noise”
Johnny Cairns. “So how long would you say between the second and the third shots?”
Mary Ann Moorman. “Immediate” (Personal Correspondence)

Senator Ralph Yarborough. “I have handled firearms for fifty year(s) and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could be a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds , another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot—by my estimate—to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots—these were my impressions that day) a third shot was fired.” (Volume VII; p.440)

Forrest V. Sorrels.
Mr. Stern. “Now, did you recognise it at the time as a shot?”
Forrest V. Sorrels. “I felt it was because it was too sharp for a backfire of an automobile. And to me, it appeared a little bit too loud for a firecracker. Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports”
Mr. Stern. “Can you tell us anything about the spacing of these reports?”
Forrest V. Sorrels. “Yes. There was to me about twice as much time between the first and the second shots as there was between the second and the third shots.
Mr. Stern. “Can you estimate the overall time from the first shot to the third shot?”
Forrest V. Sorrels. “Yes. I have called it out to myself, I have timed it, and I would say it was very, very close to 6 seconds.” (Volume VII; p. 345.)

Mary Mitchell. “She and her companion heard a loud report or explosion, then, after a short pause of four or five seconds, there were two more rapid explosions.” (FBI Report, 1/18/64)

Edward Shields. “I heard one shot then a pause and then this repetition—two shots right behind the other.” (Volume VII; p. 394)

Carolyn Walther. “At about the time they reached the curb at Elm Street, she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks. There was a pause after this first report, then a second and third report almost at the same time, and then a pause followed by at least one and possibly more reports.” (Volume XXIV; p. 522)

Steven Wilson. “It is my opinion that there was a greater space of time between the second and third shots than between the first and second. The three shots were fired within a matter of less than five seconds.” (Volume XXII; p. 685)

James Worrell Jr.
Arlen Specter. “Well, did these four shots come close together or how would you describe the timing in general on those.”
James Worrell Jr. “Succession”
Arlen Specter. “Were they very fast?”
James Worrell Jr. “They were right in succession.” (Volume II; p. 194)

Winston Lawson. “Then I heard two more sharp reports, the second two were closer together than the first. There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two.” (Volume IV; p. 353.)

With the above, the point is made. But there are many more. In the interests of brevity let us list them with the proper sourcing so the interested reader can survey the field so to speak.

Jesse E. Curry. (Volume IV; p. 161, p. 172)
Luke Mooney. (Volume III; p. 282)
William Shelley. (Volume VI; p. 329.)
James Crawford. (Volume VI; p. 172)
Joe Molina. (Volume VI; p. 371)
Garland Slack.(Volume XXVI; p. 364)
Victoria Adams. (Volume VI, p388)
Danny Arce. (FBI Report, 11/22/63)
Cecil Ault. (Volume XXIV; p. 534)
Glen Bennett. (Volume XXIV; p. 541/542)
Jane Berry. (FBI Report 11/24/63)
Earle Cabell (Volume VII; p. 478)
Mrs Cabell. (Volume VII; p. 486.)
Rose Clark. (Volume XXIV; p. 533)
George Davis. (Volume XXII; p. 837)
Harold Elkins. (Volume XIX; p. 540)
Clyde Haygood. (Volume VI; p. 287)
Ruby Henderson. (Volume XXIV; p. 524)
Pearl Springer. (Volume XXIV; p. 523)
Robert Jackson. (FBI Report, 11/22/63)
Ladybird Johnson. (Volume V; p. 565)
C.M. Jones. (Volume XIX, p. 512)
Sam Kinney. (Volume XVIII; p. 731)
Billy Lovelady. (Volume XXIV; p. 214)
John Martin Jr. (FBI Interview 3/31/64)
A.D. McCurly. (Volume XIX; p. 514)
William McIntyre. (Volume XVIII; p. 747)
Austin Miller. (Volume XIX; p. 485)
Lillian Mooneyham. (Volume XXIV; p. 531)
F. Lee. Mudd. (Volume XXIV; p. 538)
Barbara Rowland.(Volume VI; p. 184)
Ruth Smith. (FBI Interview; 12/21/63)
Allan Sweatt. (Volume XIX; p. 531)
James Tague. (FBI Report; 12/14/63)
Warren Taylor. (Volume XVIII; p. 783)
Ruth Thornton. (Volume XXIV; p. 537)
Roy Truly. (Volume III; p. 221)
James Underwood. (Volume VI; p. 169)
Mary Woodward. (Dallas Morning News; 11/23/63)
Rufus Youngblood. (Volume II; p. 150)
Roger D. Craig. (Volume VI; p. 263)

“To say that they were hit by separate bullets is synonymous with saying that there were two assassins.” Norman Redlich, Commission Counsel. (Inquest; p. 43)

9. The Cartons of The South East Corner.

During the London Weekend Television (LWT) mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1986, a significant exchange took place involving Vincent Bugliosi and Eugene Boone regarding the stacks of cartons near the south-east corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). Bugliosi, a proponent of the lone nut theory, attempted to imply that Oswald had constructed the carton shield to hide his rifle assembly, possession, and eventual use of it. Boone seemed to agree with Bugliosi’s inference, suggesting that the cartons were deliberately arranged for concealment.

Vincent Bugliosi. “Exhibit number 11 [CE723, Shield of cartons around sixth floor south-east corner window] Now on the screen is a photograph, Mr. Boone of stacks of cartons or boxes near a window. Do you recognise what is depicted in this photograph?”
Eugene Boone. “The boxes on the inside of the southeast building uh southeast uh floor of the-sixth floor of the School Book Depositary, southeast corner.”
Vincent Bugliosi. “When you arrived on the sixth floor is this the way the cartons were stacked around that window?”
Eugene Boone. “Yes sir”
Vincent Bugliosi. “So, you could almost say that there was a ‘Snipers Nest’ around that window?”
Eugene Boone. “Yes sir.”

Jerry Spence objects to Bugliosi’s leading question.

Vincent Bugliosi. “What does those cartons and boxes look like to you?”
Eugene Boone. “They look like an attempt to hide something on the other side”
Vincent Bugliosi. “If someone had been walking on that sixth floor and someone was behind those boxes uh could the person behind those boxes had been seen?”
Eugene Boone. “They would be concealed from either the elevator or the stairwell across the building”

However, Bugliosi’s line of questioning overlooks the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, which sheds light on the true origin of the carton arrangement.

Williams testified, “We had to move these books to the east side of the building, over here, and those books – I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.”

Therefore, based on Williams’ testimony, it can be concluded that the evidence contradicts Bugliosi’s claim that Oswald constructed the shield of cartons. (Volume VIII; p. 167)

10. The Men Behind the Picket Fence.

Significant testimony from Lee E. Bowers, who worked for the Union Terminal, places two individuals behind the picket fence during the crucial moments of the assassination. Bowers testified that he witnessed a flash of light or some other significant occurrence that drew his attention to the immediate area on the embankment where the two men were located. This detail is vital because it suggests a possible link between these individuals and the shots that were allegedly fired from the picket fence. Bower’s observation aligns with the claims made by multiple witnesses who insisted that the fatal shots originated from this area.

Joseph Ball. “Now, were there any people standing on the high side—high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass towards the mouth of the underpass”?
Lee Bowers. “Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket.”
Joseph Ball. “In what direction were they facing”?
Lee Bowers. “They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.” (Volume IV; p. 287)

Bowers informed Mark Lane that he witnessed a peculiar incident near the unknown individuals in the vicinity during the assassination.

Lee Bowers. “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or…there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence – a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.”

Julia Ann Mercer

On November 22, 1963, Julia Ann Mercer had a significant encounter while driving on Elm Street towards the triple underpass. As she approached, she noticed a truck parked near the right entrance road to the underpass. The truck prominently displayed the words “Air Conditioning” on its side and had toolboxes in the back. Notably, the truck appeared to have one or two wheels up on the curb. While waiting for the left-hand lane to clear so she could pass, Mercer’s attention was drawn to the driver of the truck. She observed that he was slouched over the wheel and wore a green jacket. Based on her estimation, he “was a white male and about his 40’s and was heavy set.” In a remarkable turn of events, Mercer also witnessed another individual at the back of the truck. “[he] reached over the tailgate and took out from the truck what appeared to be a gun case…it was brown in color. The man who took this out of the truck then proceeded to walk across the grass and up the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass…The man who took what appeared to be the gun case out of the truck was a white male, who appeared to be in his late 20’s or early 30’s and he was wearing a grey jacket, brown pants and plaid shirt as best as I can remember.” (Volume XIX; p. 483/484.)

When comparing the descriptions provided by Mrs. Mercer and Mr. Bowers, it is evident that there are striking similarities between the individuals they observed.
Mrs. Mercer described the driver of the truck as a white male in his 40s, wearing a green jacket and appearing heavy-set. The man who took the apparent gun case out of the truck was described as a white male in his late 20s or early 30s, wearing a grey jacket, brown pants, and a plaid shirt.

On the other hand, Mr. Bowers witnessed two individuals behind the picket fence during the assassination. He described one man as middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, wearing white shirt and dark trousers. The other man he observed was younger, in his mid-twenties, and was either wearing a plaid shirt or a plaid coat/jacket.

Considering the similarities in the descriptions, it is reasonable to deduce that Mrs. Mercer and Mr. Bowers were likely referring to the same individuals. The age ranges, physical appearances, and clothing descriptions align closely between the two accounts. This correlation strengthens the possibility that these men were indeed connected and involved in the events surrounding President Kennedy’s murder.

Several witnesses in Dealey Plaza also testified or stated that they observed smoke emanating from the trees near the picket fence after the President’s assassination. These famously include S. M . Holland who said he had no doubt about seeing a puff of smoke and hearing a gunshot from under those trees. (Volume VI, pp. 243-44)

R.C. Dodd.
Mark Lane. “Did you see anything which might indicate to you where the shots came from?”R.C. Dodd. “Well…ah…we all three/four seen about the same thing as the shots. The smoke came from the hedge on the north side of the plaza.” Mr. Dodd was not called to testify before the Warren Commission.

James Simmons.
Mark Lane. “What did you see and what did you hear?”
James Simmons. “As the Presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street, there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot. And it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us. Towards the wooden fence. And there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment.”
Mark Lane. “Where was the puff of smoke Mr. Simmons in relation to the wooden fence?”
James Simmons. “It was right directly in front of the wooden fence.”
Mr. Simmons was not called to testify to the Warren Commission.
Ed Johnson. “Some of us saw little puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade that divides Dallas main downtown streets.” (Fort Worth Star Telegram 11/23/63)
Clemon Johnson. “Mr. Johnson stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion, but he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman.” (Volume XXII; p. 836)
A.D. McCurley. “I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of the stockade fence which surrounds the park area.” (Volume XIX; p. 514.)
Austin Miller. “I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks.” (Volume XIX; p. 485.)

Thomas Murphy.
Stewart Galanor. “Could you tell me where you thought the shots came from?”
Thomas Murphy. “Yeah, they come from a tree to the left, of my left which is to the immediate right of the sight of the assassination.”
Stewart Galanor. “That would be on that grassy hill up there.”
Thomas Murphy. “Yeah, on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and Elm trees. And I say it come from there.”
Stewart Galanor. “Was there anything that actually led you to believe that the shots came from there?”
Thomas Murphy. “Yeah, smoke.”
Stewart Galanor. “You saw smoke?”
Thomas Murphy. “Sure did”.
Stewart Galanor. “Could you tell me exactly where you saw the smoke?”
Thomas Murphy. “Yeah, in that tree.” (Cover-Up; p. 59.)

Nolan Potter. “Recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees.” (Volume XXII; p. 834.)
Royce Skelton. “No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there-more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were theses dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.”
Joesph Ball. “You saw some smoke come off of the cement?”
Royce Skelton. “Yes.” (Volume VI; p.237)

Walter Wiborn.
Stewart Galanor. “Did you see anything else that might be of interest?”
Walter Wiborn. “I just saw some smoke coming out in a—a motorcycle patrolman leaped off his machine and go up towards that smoke that come out from under the trees on the right-hand side of the motorcade. Now that was—”
Stewart Galanor. “That’s up that grassy hill.”
Walter Wiborn. “Yes.”
Stewart Galanor. “Grassy knoll. There’s a wooden fence there.”
Walter Wiborn. “Yes.”
Stewart Galanor. “And you saw smoke.”
Walter Wiborn. “Yes.”
Stewart Galanor. “How many? Was it puffs of smoke?”
Walter Wiborn. “It looked like a little haze, like somebody had shot firecrackers or something like that. Or somebody had taken a puff off of a cigarette and maybe probably nervous and blowing out smoke, you know. Oh, it looked like it was more than one person that might possibly have exhaled smoke. But it was a haze there. From my general impression it looked like it was at least ten feet long and about, oh, two or three feet wide.”
Stewart Galanor. “And this was where now exactly?”
Walter Wiborn. “That was back over the sidewalk underneath those trees, that—of that fence that you were talking about…”
Stewart Galanor. “The FBI spoke with you March 17th, 1964, I believe.”
Walter Wiborn. “That’s right.”
Stewart Galanor. “And they make no mention about the smoke that you saw. Did you tell them about that, that you saw smoke on the grassy knoll?”
Walter Wiborn. “Oh yes. Oh yes”
Stewart Galanor. “They didn’t include it in their report.”
Walter Wiborn. “Well.”
Stewart Galanor. “Do you have any idea why they didn’t?”
Walter Wiborn. “I don’t have any idea. They are specialists in their field, and I’m just an amateur.” (Stewart Galanor, May 5^th, 1966)

J.L.Oxford. “We jumped the picket fence which runs along Elm Street and on over into the railroad yards. When we got over there, there was a man that told us that he had seen smoke up at the corner of the fence.” (Volume XIX; p. 530)

Who were the men observed by Julia Ann Mercer shortly before the assassination? Who were the men witnessed by Lee Bowers near the picket fence during the assassination? Was the peculiar incident that caught Bowers’ attention the smoke from a rifle, as described by multiple witnesses? Is it possible to provide an innocent explanation as to why these two men have neglected to come forward in 60 years?

Go to Part 2 of 6

Go to Part 3 of 6

Go to Part 4 of 6

Go to Part 5 of 6

Go to Part 6 of 6

September 20, 2023
The Mystery of Kennedy’s Brain Deepens

The treasure trove of documents that Malcolm Blunt refers this writer to is almost never ending.

A few months ago, Malcolm asked me if I knew about something called the Mastrovito interview by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). I said no I did not. He said it was really interesting in relation to the Secret Service cover up. So he linked me to it. After I read it, I thought Oliver Stone should talk about it in his upcoming interview with Tucker Carlson. Carlson was fired by Fox before Stone could appear. But since the interview is so interesting, our readers should be informed about it.

Let me preface this by saying that once I read it, I called up Dave Montague. He was the principal field investigator for the ARRB after Anne Buttimer left. I asked him how he found out about James M. Mastrovito. I had only seen him mentioned in the work of Vince Palamara, and there only briefly. (Honest Answers p. 129) Montague said that Joan Zimmerman originally told him he should try and find him. Zimmerman was the ARRB employee in charge of the Secret Service inquiry. She gave Dave some background on the man and he began looking for him. With the help of David Marwell, then executive director, the ARRB located him. Once they did, he was sent some materials and asked if he wished to talk. He consented to a phone interview with Joan and Dave. The date of the interview is April 1, 1997.

Mastrovito was a 20-year veteran of the Secret Service: 1959 to 1979. He was on the White House detail from 1960 to 1962. After the murder of Kennedy, he was relocated from a field office to headquarters. Once the PRS—Protective Research Section — was reorganized into the Intelligence Division, he became a deputy there. He held this spot for about a decade. Then, for a few years before he retired, he became the Director of that division.

We now come to the part of the interview that interested Joan Zimmerman into first digging up Mastrovito. According to him, Robert Bouck was moved out of the PRS after 1963. So at this time, he became in charge of the Kennedy file. Which was about 5-6 file cabinets worth of material. He was in charge of cutting down the volume of the file. After he was done cutting, miraculously, the collection was pared down to just one 5 drawer file cabinet. He said he thought this occurred in about 1970.

He added that while the House Select Committee on Assassinations was in session, he was questioned on this issue by then Chief Counsel Robert Blakey. Blakey was quite curious about it and even threatened legal action. On the grounds that some Secret Service files he requested were not around at this time. Mastrovito replied by saying that Director James Rowley’s 1965 memo instructed him to remove “irrelevant materials”. But Zimmerman wrote in her memo that it was Mastrovito who decided what to keep and what to discard.

Zimmerman then asked an important, probing, type of question: Did he view or obtain any artifacts while he was in charge of the JFK file? In an answer that none could have predicted, he replied that “…he had received a piece of President Kennedy’s brain.” He continued by saying it was contained in a vial with the identifying label on it. And here he offered a very intriguing further detail. The vial, about the size of a prescription bottle, was from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). When Zimmerman asked him who handed him the vial he said that it was Walter Young, who was the first chief of the Intelligence Division. This was when Young retired and Mastrovito took over; he assumed it was given to Young from someone at AFIP. Unfortunately, Young had died a year before the interview. Incredibly, Mastrovito said he eliminated the content of the vial in a machine that destroys food.

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP)

The reason I wanted Stone to talk about Mastrovito with Tucker Carlson is because his interview complemented, and complicated, the material Stone has in his films, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed. One of the most compelling aspects of those films from a forensic view was the material dealing with the baffling evidentiary problems presented by Kennedy’s brain. Stone made this argument from differing planes of evidence. First, that the alleged weight of Kennedy’s brain as 1500 grams cannot be accurate. Since that is about 150 grams more than the average weight of a brain according to an extensive Dutch study. As Gary Aguilar notes in the film, how can this be so when we see all the blood, tissue and even bone dislodged by a shot to Kennedy’s head at frame 313 in the Zapruder film. When we also see photos of the back seat of the car covered with loads of blood and tissue? When we look at Jackie Kennedy’s dress? When we know that she handed a doctor at Parkland Hospital a piece of bone from Kennedy’s skull? When we know that two motorcycle policemen to Kennedy’s left recall being splattered with blood and brain tissue–so hard that one thought he was hit by a bullet. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 161)

Then there is the condition of the brain as witnessed by medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda. Multiple witnesses, over ten actually, said they saw a brain that was severely damaged. For instance, Dr. McClelland of Parkland said about a third of the brain was blasted out. Dr. Thornton Boswell at Bethesda, where the autopsy was conducted, said the same. Medical assistant James Jenkins said the brain was so damaged on the underside that it was hard to introduce needles for it to be formalin profused. (Ibid.)

Yet this is not what the illustrations and pictures show. Not even close. They show a pretty much complete brain, one that is only disrupted on one side but with no real loss of volume. This paradox was brought to a boil when, as Stone shows in his film, the official autopsy photographer, John Stringer, denied he took these brain photos. He did so under oath during a deposition for the ARRB. There were two main reasons he could not accept the photos the Board showed him. First, he said he did not use the type of film these photos were taken with, which was the Ansco brand. Second, he did not utilize the photographic technique involved, called a press pack. This was betrayed by a series number for each photo. Stringer was pretty much stunned when he noticed these numbers. (Ibid, p. 164)

Obviously, the autopsy itself was done the night of November 22^nd at Bethesda Medical Center. There was an alleged supplementary autopsy report done. It was signed only by lead pathologist Jim Humes. There is a date at the top of the first page, December 6, but it is handwritten. Since the rest of the report is typed, this indicates it was added later.

Bethesda Naval Hospital

Now, if the autopsy was done at Bethesda and the official story has pathologist Jim Humes giving the medical exhibits, including the brain, to Admiral George Burkley—Kennedy’s private doctor– for the internment, then how did at least a part of Kennedy’s brain end up at the AFIP? And how and why was this kept hidden for literally decades? The inevitable question suggests itself: was this the destination of Kennedy’s real brain, the one that was blasted beyond recognition? According to Montague this information very much interested and troubled Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn and Military Records analyst Doug Horne, the two leaders of the ARRB medical inquiry. One reason it did so was that it seemed to corroborate a previous interview the ARRB had done. This was one with a man named Ken Vrtacnik who also worked at AFIP. That interview was done on November 12, 1996, as his name had been provided by an outside, unnamed source.

Vrtacnik had been stationed at AFIP during the years 1964-65. He was interviewed by Montague and Horne. In a remarkable piece of testimony, he corroborated Mastrovito. He said that he had seen Kennedy’s brain during the 1964-65 period, and he stated it had been kept in a locked room as part of the AFIP complex. Like Mastrovito, he said he knew it was Kennedy’s brain since it was labeled as such. He also added that it was under very tight control. But he said an AFIP employee, Joyce Manus, who ran the Pathology Data Division, could produce a data sheet which would show when the specimen was received, from whom, and its current status there. This writer has not been able to find any ARRB interview with Manus.

The intrigue over what happened to Kennedy’s brain is now multiplied by these two pieces of testimony. Who would have thought that this aspect could get any worse? But it has. And again, it shows just how utterly incompetent and amateurish the Warren Commission was. They did not even touch this matter. Yet it now seems that the mystery of President Kennedy’s brain is something like a signal light from a watch tower cutting through the foggy night. Kennedy’s brain is now the key to the crime, providing guidance through the storm.

August 22, 2023
Old Wine in New Bottles: Fletcher Prouty’s New Critics Recycle the Past

(Disclosure: the author is a friend and colleague of Len Osanic, who befriended and worked with Fletcher Prouty in his later years. Len continues to run the Fletcher Prouty online reference site www.prouty.org)

Recent years have seen a resurgence in reputational criticism of the late Col. L Fletcher Prouty, the former Pentagon official responsible for numerous influential books and essays, and the real-life model for the fictional Mr X character in Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. Curiously, these efforts – by a small but vocal faction – gathered momentum following the passing of John McAdams, a self-styled “debunker” of JFK assassination theories who had been a central source of reputational disparagement of Prouty dating back to the early 1990s.^[1]The renewed efforts have added little to what had been previously articulated, but are notable for a distinctly strident tone and a smug certainty in presenting harsh conclusions which are not at all supported by the available record. By this, the new anti-Prouty crowd appear distinguished by being actually worse, or at least more irresponsible and reckless, than their late mentor.

I

A central focus for these critics has been Prouty’s 1996 appearance before a panel of ARRB staffers. While this event earned little more than a passing mention in the McAdams compendium, to contemporary debunkers it serves as the effective immolation of Prouty’s entire assassination-related oeuvre as, over the course of a long interview, he allegedly “could not substantiate any of his allegations.”

Prouty’s Appearance at the ARRB 1996

The Assassination Records Review Board was created by the US Congress in the wake of Oliver Stone’s JFK film and the resulting outcry over the continuing classification of much of the official record and subsequent investigations. The Board had the mandate to identify records and oversee the process by which they would be made public. In certain circumstances, the Board had the authority to interview persons whose input could assist with locating records or whose personal experiences might help clarify circumstances which were yet incomplete. An interview was arranged with Fletcher Prouty for September 1996, with the intention of both clarifying experiences and identifying records.

The 9/10/96 letter from Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn read as follows: “We will ask you to recount your personal experiences from around the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, as well as whatever information you have regarding military activities and procedures in effect. I would also like you to bring with you any relevant documents or notes related to these topics, especially any contemporaneous records (such as personal correspondence, telephone notes, daily diary entries, or the like) you might have.”

A month previous to this communication, a memorandum had been distributed to Gunn from Tim Wray, a Pentagon veteran who was then running the ARRB’s Military Records Team. Wray understood a potential interview with Prouty would be assisting an effort known as the “112 Military Intelligence Project”, specifically interested in information previously published by Prouty concerning a possible “stand down” order directed to a Texas-based Military Intelligence unit related to presidential protection duties in Dallas 1963.^[2]

Wray’s 8/9/96 memo on Army Intelligence in Dallas read as follows: “We should eventually interview Prouty as well, though I frankly do not expect much from this—everything about his story that we’ve been able to check out so far appears to be untrue….Its only slightly more difficult to check the factual basis for the other elements of Prouty’s story….Prouty’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding—it appears that military collaboration with the Secret Service was in fact, extremely limited, and that there certainly were no such thing as “military presidential protection units” per se.

Wray would also later write, “Among other purposes, an important goal of this interview was to ask Prouty about three specific allegations he made in his book, “CIA etc”. These allegations were of particular significance to use because Prouty claimed they were based on his own firsthand knowledge.” (Wray Memo of 2/21/97)

That there was an identified “important goal” for the interview was not shared with Prouty in the communication from September 10, 1996. Similarly, Wray’s Military Records Team assistant Christopher Barger composed a memo the following day, September 11,1996, identifying specific “allegations” appearing in Prouty’s 1992 book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F Kennedy, and proposing a line of questioning marked by an innate skepticism directed to Prouty’s “personal experiences”.^[3] This doubting approach to his published work was also not shared with Prouty ahead of his appearance.

The interview was conducted on September 24, 1996. According to some, referring to his performance, Prouty suffered severe damage to his reputation and the integrity of his rendering of the historic record.^[4] This version of events relies on an interview “Summary”, produced by Military Records Team assistant Barger, which frames the exchange as a contentious deposition.^[5] The integrity of this Summary relies on the assumption that the Team participating in this interview spoke from a position supported by the confirmed record.

If It Walks Like A Duck…

Wray wrote, about a month later:

“…we should make (Prouty’s) interview with the ARRB easily available in written form so people can see for themselves what’s behind the fluff…There’s no way we can fairly represent the interview in summary form without it looking like a hatchet job.” – (Tim Wray, ARRB Memorandum October 23, 1996.)^[6]

The interview transcript was published along with the Summary so that, according to Wray, the process wouldn’t merely appear as a “hatchet job”.

It might seem obvious that if one cannot “fairly” describe an interview process without it appearing as a “hatchet job”, then the proposition that the process was, in fact, a hatchet job is in play. Wray, to the contrary, asserts, literally, that “the emperor has no clothes” and declares therefore the ARRB Military Records Team is “not planning to do much of (Prouty’s) laundry.”^[7] Beyond the strained analogy, Wray’s memorandum establishes the Team engaged the interview as an adversarial contest, tied to their own biases and skewed to a partisan acceptance of the JFK assassination’s Official Story. In a telling example, Barger opines: “Prouty also admits that he has never read or even seen the Warren Commission Report. No reputable historian would write a criticism of a source document without having read the source document first.”^[8]

Barger’s Summary begins by noting the panel’s interest in Prouty stemmed from “claims”, “theories” and “conclusions” often based on “special, firsthand knowledge that he gained through his own experiences” during his years at the Pentagon. The purpose of the interview is therefore, in part, to determine the extent to which his “various allegations or statements” were based on “personal knowledge or experience”, and, “should he disavow factual knowledge”, to determine if he is aware of other “factual data that could tend to prove or disprove his allegations.” The Summary proceeds to itemize ten supposed “allegations” Prouty had articulated or published in his work, and putting them to a test, such as locating reference in official documents or finding confirmation through the identification of other individuals. In conclusion, The Summary insists the Team “intended on hearing his story”, but found “in the face of numerous contradictions, unsupportable allegations, and assertions which we know to be incorrect, we have no choice but to conclude that there is nothing to be gained or added to the record from following up on anything he told us.”^[9]

While this Summary conclusion has apparently convinced some persons that Prouty should not be taken seriously, it represents a prejudiced interpretation reliant on a concept of allegation introduced solely by the Team’s own initiative. The concept of a “hatchet job” is confirmed by the notable reliance in the Summary on this term – allegation – a word never articulated in the communications with Prouty ahead of the interview, and used sparingly during the interview itself.^[10] Within the Summary, however, its prominent use is naturalized by repetition, and contemporary endorsements of the Summary’s conclusions repeat the word liberally.

Put another way, and considering the range of experiences across Prouty’s professional career, one might refer to his “observations” instead of the more obviously loaded preferred description. The difference between the two is quite sharp, particularly since the stated purpose of the interview, from the Team’s perspective, was to “prove or disprove” and “confirm or deny”:

ob·ser·va·tion |(ə)n |

a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed

al·le·ga·tion |noun

a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof

The Summary of the ARRB interview framed Prouty’s personal experiences as a series of “allegations”.

There are ten separate “allegations” described in the Interview Summary, each with a “Result or Conclusion by ARRB” attached. Three “allegations” refer to content in the JFK film; one refers to Prouty’s work as a military liaison with the CIA; and six have to do with presidential protection, a field outside of his professional responsibility and of which he had no practical experience.

The first “allegation” refers to Prouty’s trip to Antarctica in November 1963, noting, in the JFK movie, this trip was portrayed as “out of the ordinary or unusual in some way.”^[11] Although, in a later publication, Prouty had surmised retrospectively if there was a hidden reason to being selected for the journey, he otherwise spoke consistently, including to the ARRB panel, of the trip as routine.^[12] The assumed “sinister connotations”, portrayed by the ARRB panel as an “allegation”, is in fact a dramatic embellishment attributable to the JFK screenwriters, not to Prouty – who, regardless, is described as unable “to back up the suspicions he mentioned in the excerpt from his book.”^[13] The second “allegation” concerns information appearing in wire service news reports and published in a New Zealand paper approximately 5-6 hours after the shots in Dallas.^[14] While the Team’s “Result or conclusion” of this minor affair doesn’t refer to an actual result or conclusion, it does suggest “Prouty’s allegation of a ‘cover story’ will be weakened”. The point missed, however, is by his presence in New Zealand Prouty was outside and apart from the common shared experience stateside on that day, dominated by the visceral shock of the initial news followed by a steady drip of information which appeared to follow a sequential logic. Outside the simulacrum, Prouty could make the obvious, and correct, observation that there had quickly appeared a great deal of information about a suspect who had yet to be even arraigned on the JFK case, and in fact wouldn’t be for another 6-7 hours.^[15] Having made this first observation, it is fair for him to point out the incorrect reports of “automatic weapons fire” – as others did as well.

“Allegation” numbers three through five, and ten, concern Prouty’s information – published in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy and in his Foreword to Mark Lane’s book Plausible Denial — regarding an apparent case of security stripping in Dallas involving a military intelligence outfit based in San Antonio.^[16] Prouty had privately received information that the 112th Unit had been advised to stand down in Dallas by the Secret Service, This was referring to a Presidential protection capability within the military. According to internal memoranda, the ARRB Military Records Team was skeptical such units existed and was determined to “debunk” Prouty’s information. In the fullness of time, Prouty’s veracity regarding both the actual fact of military intelligence support for presidential protection, and the private communication he received, has been confirmed and the Team’s skepticism debunked.^[17]

Allegations six and seven refer to Prouty’s knowledge of Secret Service presidential protection protocols. When mentioning these, Prouty is referring to events specific to his military career, including several days in Mexico City, 1955, with a Secret Service advance team ahead of an Eisenhower visit. Prouty’s observations from these episodes inform his published statements and his statements during the ARRB interview. He qualifies his interactions as having “logistics purposes, not to learn all about the system.” The ARRB’s Summary characterizes the “allegations” as lacking corroborative documentation. This lack included failing to answer the question: “How many Secret Service agents would you have expected to be providing coverage in Dallas?”^[18] Figurative speech is also interpreted literally, such as Prouty’s reference to the Secret Service working from a long-established “book” (he is asked if he has a copy of the “book”), or his impression that the Secret Service was deficient in Dallas stated as “they weren’t there” (he is asked if he meant they literally were not there).^[19] This exchange is referred in the Summary as follows: “Prouty makes the very serious charge that the Secret Service was not even on duty in Dallas on November 22, then admits he has no experience upon which to base this statement.”^[20] In truth, the deficiencies of the Secret Service during the Dallas motorcade have been well-catalogued, if not by the sources who appear to have influenced the Team.

“Allegation #8” concerns whether some of Oswald’s activity during his Marine service in Asia – specifically with radar at Atsugi air base (where the U2s were based) and potentially in support of operations directed at Indonesia – could be described as part of CIA-directed programs. Although Prouty correctly describes the existence of the programs and Oswald’s proximity, the Panel jumps on his lack of specific documentation (“substantiating evidence”) as a means of dismissing the notion Oswald was involved. Even though Oswald himself specifically hinted at insider knowledge of U2 activity (at Atsugi) during his communications in Moscow related to his defection to the USSR, the Team presumes to consign this “allegation” as based merely on open-source rumors.

“Allegation #9” refers to Prouty’s identification of Ed Lansdale in one of the well-known “Tramps” photos, which is portrayed in the JFK film. The Team acknowledges that a “search of travel records” might confirm or deny Lansdale’s presence in the Dallas region at the time, but factors such as the “small likelihood” of finding such records and their “relative unimportance” indicated that such effort was “not worth checking out.” (Summary ,p 11) In 1991, at the time of the JFK film, Lansdale could be traced to Fort Worth, Texas mid-November 1963. Subsequent information has placed Lansdale in Denton, a Dallas suburb, on the evening of November 21, 1963.^[21]

In sum, despite the brutal Summary composed in the aftermath of Prouty’s appearance before the ARRB’s Military Records Team, none of the ten points presuming to “debunk” his “allegations” actually hold up under scrutiny. That is, while the ARRB’s panel makes much of Prouty’s supposed failure to produce information outside his jurisdiction, such as Secret Service “manuals” (of which they aren’t even sure exist in the first place), and proceed to criticize his lived experiences, there is nothing actually incorrect or overstated in his observations. Latter-day critics lionize the Military Records Team’s Summary conclusions using a superficial reading based largely on the Team’s own predetermined finger-pointing, which was biased and subject to partial knowledge later superseded. However, there was one data point appearing in the Summary which has held up over the years as an accurate statement:

“Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from 1955-1964. His position can be documented.” (P. 13)

II

Prior to the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK in late 1991, L. Fletcher Prouty was a relatively inconspicuous figure known to few outside of aging participants of early Cold War military/intelligence circles, or committed parapolitical researchers and their small followings. The backlash directed against the film – which began while it was still filming – attacked the intellectual foundation of the screenplay, as personified by director Oliver Stone (purportedly being “fooled” by Warren Commission critics), the film’s “compromised” protagonist (Jim Garrison) and, to a lesser extent, the insider Fletcher Prouty (known in the film as “Mister X”).

A photocopy of Diamond’s Guardian article was anonymously submitted to the JFK production office, along with several typewritten pages of “opposition research” directed at Prouty.

All three were in the crosshairs of an article published in the November 1991 issue of Esquire Magazine. With the punning title “The Shooting of JFK”, author Robert Sam Anson put together one of the key contributions to the anti-JFK literature from the period, covering the film’s production. While bashing first Stone, then Garrison, and then turning to Prouty in a late-article segment which combined character assassination with an offhand revelation of why it was exactly the establishment had problems with the film.^[22]

Anson introduces Prouty as a genial grandfather type, at least as so impressing the JFK production office, but notes the whispers of “cautious buffs” who are “leery” and wary of Prouty’s background and “claims.”^[23] Suddenly, in the production office, a “small thing” starts “the trouble”, and reporter Anson, despite the staff’s nondisclosure agreements, manages to be in the know and in the loop. Anson reports that some of the office’s research staff had been paging through “a tiny left-wing New York weekly” and, by chance, discovered an article identifying Fletcher Prouty “as a cause célèbre in the virulently anti-Semitic, racist Liberty Lobby.”^[24]

The article in question – ‘Populists’ Tap Resentment of the Elite – written by Sara Diamond and published in the July 3, 1991 issue of The Guardian (NYC) – was a legitimate investigative work, and the specific references to Prouty’s activities were accurate. While, to those who knew Prouty, the concept he was a racist fellow-traveler in step with the most virulent members of the Lobby, or even a “right-winger” as portrayed, appeared fringe and absurd, within Stone’s production office the general consensus was Prouty’s associations “looked bad” and could be a “public-relations time-bomb” for the JFK film.^[25] The top researcher on staff told Stone: “Basically, there’s no way Fletcher could be unaware of the unsavory aspects of the Liberty Lobby.”^[26]

The Connections to the Liberty Lobby

The finger-pointing directed at Prouty associating him with the Lobby was based on essentially four items: guest appearances on a syndicated radio program – Radio Free America – hosted by Tom Valentine and sponsored by The Spotlight, the Lobby’s weekly newspaper (numerous appearances 1988-94)^[27];a speaking engagement at The Spotlight’s annual national convention (September 1990); the re-publication of Prouty’s The Secret Team by the Lobby’s imprint Noontide Press (autumn 1990)^[28]; and Prouty’s being named to a national policy advisory board for the Lobby’s Populist Action Committee, (spring 1991).^[29]

Cassettes from Radio Free America, Tom Valentine’s syndicated AM radio program. Prouty was a popular guest with both the host and the audience, appearing several times a year through 1994.

Taken at face value, in addition to the radio program which he appeared several times a year from 1988-94 as a popular guest, the links may stem from the longer association of Prouty’s colleague Mark Lane with the Liberty Lobby, representing them across several lawsuits in the mid-to-late 1980s. The experiences would result in a book, Plausible Denial, published in 1991, for which Prouty wrote the Foreword. In his book, Lane describes how his interest in representing the Liberty Lobby was piqued by the convergence of the initial litigation, which involved E. Howard Hunt, with the JFK assassination. Lane felt it was an opportunity to litigate a facet of that lingering controversy, and potentially assist its eventual resolution.

Prouty’s brief direct association with Lobby-related groups in late 1990 / early 1991 is coincident with the preparation of Plausible Denial.

When You’re A Hammer, Everything Looks Like A Nail

As it happened, there were at least three researcher/reporters working the far-right “beat” in 1990-91, observing activity sponsored by the Liberty Lobby. One was working for the Anti-Defamation League.^[30] The second was Sara Diamond, the author of the piece published in the “tiny left-wing New York weekly”, and at the time working on a UC Berkeley sociology PhD, eventually producing a dissertation entitled “Right Wing Movements in the United States 1945-1992”. The third was activist Chip Berlet, concentrating on the influence of America’s political right with particular concern directed to overlap, or convergence, of the right with the left.^[31] Both Berlet and Diamond were outspoken with their opinion that alliances between the extreme right and the Left, initiated through mutual disagreement with official policies such as the Gulf War, was a “bad idea” and perhaps part of a strategic plot by the right to co-opt or discredit Progressives.^[32]

Berlet was in attendance at the 1990 Spotlight conference, at which Prouty spoke, and at which both Mark Lane and Dick Gregory also appeared.^[33]Acknowledging the conference’s attention to looming foreign policy controversies in the Middle East,Berlet wrote: “There was considerable antiwar sentiment expressed by speakers who tied the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to pressure from Israel and its intelligence agency, Mossad…No matter what actual political involvement, if any…the themes discussed at the Liberty Lobby conference tilted toward undocumented anti-Jewish propaganda rather than principled factual criticisms.”^[34] However, rather than analyze the contrasts between the propaganda and the factual criticisms, Berlet is more interested in highlighting links between individuals and organizations, and connecting overarching thematic concepts between them. So the content of Prouty’s remarks, with the topic “The Secret Team”, is not discussed, but his acknowledgment during the presentation of Noontide Press for republishing his book is.^[35] Similarly, the reader learns who followed Prouty to the podium, who participated in a panel Prouty moderated, how The Spotlight paraphrased the event, and even how persons “associated” with the Liberty Lobby later circulated antiwar literature “at several antiwar rallies.”

Researcher Laird Wilcox, editor of the annual Guide To the American Right surveys, criticized in the 1990s what he termed an “anti-racist industry”, claiming anti-racist groups had consistently overstated the influence of what are in fact fringe movements, and named both the ADL and Political Research Associates as having engaged questionable tactics to support their conclusions.^[36] “Mr. Wilcox says what most watchdog groups have in common is a tendency to use what he calls ‘links and ties’ to imply connections between individuals and groups.”^[37]

‘Links and ties’ is certainly not an uncommon technique, particularly for political research. It does however produce a lot of “false positives”, and researchers are perhaps therefore best served exercising a degree of due diligence and establishing secondary sources before jumping to conclusions – such as Diamond’s linking Prouty to the “extreme right” or Berlet labelling him a “fascist”.^[38]This can be compounded by a rhetorical strategy of using broad brush strokes to establish and portray monolithic racialist structures – a tendency which may be effective as a partisan effort to “sound the alarm”, but which can be misleading and reduce political complexity to simple and skewed dichotomies.^[39]In this fashion, the Liberty Lobby’s weekly newspaper The Spotlight was assumed by the three researchers as necessarily a tool of the anti-Semitic foundation of the Lobby, and was therefore, in their perception, obviously engaged primarily in disseminating that message (although much of that effort may appear in code).^[40] Other information portrays The Spotlight, at least during the time in question, as servicing a broader populist conservative community. The publication is described in Kevin Flynn’s 1989 investigative The Silent Brotherhood as “one of the right wing’s most widely read publications”, attracting “a huge diversity of readers, from survivalists and enthusiasts of unorthodox medical treatments to fundamentalist Christians and anti-Zionists.”^[41]Daniel Brandt’s NameBase, a parapolitical research tool, described The Spotlight in 1991 as “anti-elitist, opposed to the Gulf War, wanted the JFK assassination reinvestigated, and felt that corruption and conspiracies could be found in high places.”^[42]

Prouty himself responded to the criticisms of his “links and ties” to the Liberty Lobby as follows:

“I’ve never written for Liberty Lobby. I’ve spoken as a commercial speaker, they paid me to speak and then I left. They print a paragraph or two of my speech same as they would of anybody else, but I’ve never joined them. I don’t subscribe to their newspaper, I never go to their own meetings, but they had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that’s it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don’t join.”^[43]

III

An honest review of the “hatchet-jobs” directed at Fletcher Prouty invariably sources to the time frame of 1991-1992, coinciding with the U.S. establishment’s attack on Oliver Stone’s JFK film, conducted through its legacy media. In light of that, a curious feature of Robert Sam Anson’s Esquire piece is its concluding section, following directly from the Liberty Lobby “cause célèbre” takedown of Prouty, which had in turn followed a concentrated bashing of Stone and then Jim Garrison. Rather than continuing with the overt criticism, the concluding section hastily endorses a new personage with a point of view said to gel with Stone’s general thesis of JFK’s intention to exit Vietnam, but with a non-conspiratorial spin.

Prouty with John Judge in early 1992. Small circulation VHS interviews were among the limited options available for efforts to support and supplement Stone’s “JFK”.

The new personage was John Newman, well-regarded these days with a solid thirty-year run of intensively detailed histories of the Kennedy administration’s national security challenges. Upon this introduction, Anson sets out immediately to contrast Newman with Prouty, utilizing complementary adjectives: Newman is described as “meticulous, low-key, methodical, highly experienced, characteristically cautious” while Prouty is “ever-voluble” and prone to jumping to conclusions. Anson strongly infers that Newman expresses what amounts to the “good” interpretation of events, while Prouty embodies the misshapen “buff” perspective.

On the other hand, Newman’s perspective still confirms the previously fringe viewpoint that Kennedy had developed a Vietnam policy anticipating an eventual complete withdrawal of “military personnel”, which the JFK film had adopted. Anson opts to promote a presumed back-channel “secret operation” designed to “systematically deceive” the White House so to encourage expansion of the US effort in Vietnam. This secret operation is proposed to be “the real story” above and beyond Fletcher Prouty’s musings regarding the distinctions between National Security Action Memorandums 263 and 273. In the fullness of time, the “back-channel secret operation” never proved a viable hypothesis, while Prouty’s intuitive commentary on NSAM 263 and 273 has been effectively accepted even if debate over motivation continues.

Therefore, the two express “hatchet-jobs” directed at Prouty in 1991 and 1996 – the Esquire piece and the ARRB interview – both promoting the pretension that Prouty was unstable and his concepts were easily “debunked” by the official record, have proved to be fundamentally in error, first over the NSAMs and second over the military intelligence units. To this day, Prouty’s detractors still cannot articulate where exactly he is wrong – about the assassination or about his experiences during his military career. This is why such criticisms invariably fade into a drab curtain of distraction, stained with reference to the Liberty Lobby, Scientology, Princess Diana, and other irrelevancies.

Oliver Stone put it well in his published response to Anson’s Esquire piece: “(Prouty’s) revelations and his book The Secret Team have not been discredited in any serious way. I regret his involvement with Liberty Lobby, but what does that have to do with the Kennedy / Vietnam issue?…I have not, nor do I intend, to ‘distance’ myself in any way from Garrison’s or Colonel Prouty’s long efforts in this case. They may have made mistakes, but they fought battles that Anson could never dream of.”

NOTES:

^[1] Mcadams’ Prouty entry on his JFK assassination website was an oft-cited compilation of disparaging talking points. Most if not all of this concerted “debunking” has in turn been debunked. Disputes over the factual record and Mcadams’ seeming influence over certain Wikipedia gatekeepers (editors) resulted in a classic essay discussing narrative management and the internet: Anatomy of an Online Atrocity: Wikipedia, Gamaliel, and the Fletcher Prouty Entry

^[2] See Fletcher Prouty vs the ARRB by Jim DiEugenio for the full story.

^[3]Memorandum dated Sept 11, 1996.

^[4]L. Fletcher Prouty Talks to the ARRB

^[5]Interview Summary, prepared October 23, 1996 by Christopher Barger

^[6]Memorandum is found on page 70 of this link.

^[7] Ibid

^[8] Interview Summary p11. In context, Prouty’s reference to the Warren Report is based on the understanding it was fully part of a cover-up operation and therefore wholly unreliable as a “historic” record and, in that regard, useless as a “source document.” Prouty’s work never had the pretension to specifically “criticize” the Report for this reason.

^[9] In some instances, the panel holds Prouty as “unreliable” due to his reluctance to identify individuals, despite his specific caution at the interview’s start that he will not identify individuals who are/were operational – “I never name a man who is operational. Never.” He was also labelled unreliable by being unable to produce particular documentation, although he had explained that the types of documents they sought either never existed or had been long destroyed.

^[10] The full transcript of the September 24, 1996 interview with Prouty can be accessed here.

^[11] Allegation #1: Trip to Antarctica may have had sinister connotations. Interview Summary p2

^[12] L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Introduction by Oliver Stone (New York: Citadel Press, 1992), p. 284. “I have always wondered, deep in my own heart, whether that strange invitation that removed me so far from Washington and from the center of all things clandestine that I knew so well might have been connected to the events that followed.”

^[13] “Result or conclusion by ARRB:…Prouty made no statements for the record to back up the suspicions he mentioned in the excerpt from his book cited above.” Interview Summary p3.

^[14] “it is alleged that the Christchurch Star, when running its first story about the assassination, included biographical information on Lee Harvey Oswald and named him as the accused before he had actually been arraigned for the crime in Dallas. The allegation is also made that the first reports from Dealey Plaza, which were not entirely accurate, were sent out as a part of a ‘cover story’ of some sort.” Interview Summary p3.

^[15] The rapid identification of Oswald as first the main and eventually the only suspect remains to be accounted for, particularly as the evidence was sparse and the suspect was denying everything. It is not known how or why the FBI concluded Oswald “did it” an hour after his arrest, or the process by which the wire services soon after were presumably signalled that Oswald’s identity and biography was newsworthy. There were other arrests made in connection with Dealey Plaza, but none other than Oswald featured names and personal biographies splashed across the evening news.

^[16] L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Introduction by Oliver Stone (New York: Citadel Press, 1992 p. 294. Plausible Denial p XV.

^[17] See: “Fletcher Prouty vs the ARRB” by Jim DiEugenio

^[18] interview transcript p36 Prouty’s tone in reply is noted: “(testily) See, we’re overdoing this. I went to Mexico City once, so I’d know the business…”. In the Summary, the descriptive “(testily”) is changed to “(Very agitatedly)” Summary Barger p8

^[19] Wray: “…When you say “the Secret Service was not in Dallas” do I understand you are speaking a little bit figuratively there? That they may have been there, but weren’t doing their job thoroughly? Or do you mean literally, that they were not there?” Interview transcript (P36).

^[20] Barger Summary p8. Prouty in fact discussed his experience, which was in 1955 in Mexico City

^[21] pp 261-262 Alan Dale with Malcolm Blunt, The Devil Is In The Details, self-published 2020. Prouty’s identification was confirmed by his Pentagon boss Victor Krulak in a personal letter written in the 1980s. There have been claims such letter never existed, but it is be found in the Prouty document archive maintained by Len Osanic.

^[22]Anson had previously written They’ve Killed the President, Bantam 1975, in which he first bashed Garrison and his truncated investigation.

^[23]According to Anson, the whispers suggested Prouty “had a tendency to see the CIA’s dark hand everywhere…Another liability was Prouty’s fondness for putting himself at the center of great events.” These suggestions seem to refer to Prouty’s military career, during which, most everyone agrees, he worked closely with CIA and “was where he says he was…his position can be documented.”

^[24]This may not be an accurate account of this discovery, as around the same time the research staff had been forwarded a photocopy of the article in question, along with several typewritten pages referring to complementary research by a researcher with the Anti Defamation League. Both sources supplied similar reference to associations between Prouty and groups linked with the Liberty Lobby. It is possible the chance “discovery” was more accurately described as the arrival of unsolicited opposition research forwarded to the Stone office. Exactly how Anson got word of this is not known.

^[25]Anson writes: “When questioned, Prouty, the intelligence expert, pleaded ignorance. He had not known of (Liberty Lobby founder) Carto’s Nazi leanings, he insisted…As for (Carto’s) assertion that the Holocaust was a lie, (Prouty)…would say only, ‘I’m no authority in that area.’ ‘My God,’ moaned a Stone assistant after listening to the rationalizations. ‘If this gets out, Oliver is going to look like the biggest dope of all time.’” This paragraph can be read as inferring Stone’s team confronted Prouty and were listening directly to his response. Anson’s sentence structure, however, is not exactly precise and leaves open the possibility, or likelihood, that someone else conducted this questioning of Prouty, under unknown circumstances, and that the staffers “listened” to the “rationalizations” second-hand.

^[26]This opinion is something of an extrapolation, also expressed by Anson i.e.: “When questioned, Prouty, the intelligence expert, pleaded ignorance.” This presumes Prouty’s attention to detail in his professional capacity necessarily carried over to other aspects of his life. Such presumption is not entirely accurate as, for example, at the time they first met, Prouty was entirely unfamiliar with Oliver Stone and had not seen any of his films, despite the publicity associated with Stone’s career momentum in the 1980s and his three Oscar wins.

^[27]Prouty’s appearances, across several years, were cited as a clear indication of his “being up to his neck in the racist right movement”. Len Osanic has copies of Prouty’s Radio Free America appearances on cassette, and says the claim, sourced to Anti Defamation League researchers, that the program engaged in routine anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial are “nothing”. Osanic says Prouty’s appearances were essentially similar to the contemporaneous Karl Loren Live broadcasts from Los Angeles which Prouty also appeared during this period. The author has reviewed several of Prouty’s interviews with Valentine and concurs with Osanic. The discussions cover ground exactly similar to most other interviews Prouty gave at the time, the content of which are entirely uncontroversial.

^[28]Prouty told Len Osanic the publication was a “one-time” commitment, a limited press run for which Prouty received a small amount of money. Prouty told Osanic that he understood Noontide as specializing in editions of books which had fallen out of circulation. Noontide, at the time, had also republished Leonard Lewin’s Report From Iron Mountain. The original edition of The Secret Team in 1973 was subject to distribution problems. Prouty discussed this in a note to the 1997 edition: “ After excellent early sales of The Secret Team during which Prentice-Hall printed three editions of the book, and it had received more than 100 favorable reviews, I was invited to meet Ian Ballantine, the founder of Ballantine Books. He told me that he liked the book and would publish 100,000 copies in paperback as soon as he could complete the deal with Prentice-Hall…Then one day a business associate in Seattle called to tell me that the bookstore next to his office building had had a window full of the books the day before, and none the day of his call. They claimed they had never had the book. I called other associates around the country. I got the same story from all over the country. The paperback had vanished. At the same time I learned that Mr. Ballantine had sold his company. I traveled to New York to visit the new “Ballantine Books” president. He professed to know nothing about me, and my book. That was the end of that surge of publication. For some unknown reason Prentice-Hall was out of my book also. It became an extinct species.” The Secret Team book, and its unavailability, was referred several times on the Valentine radio program ahead of the republication.

^[29]Prouty agreed to the use of his name, but said he had no other involvement with the Committee, i.e. he never provided advice or attended any meetings.

^[30]This may have been Kenneth McVay, whose work, later published online, corresponds to the cited information sent to Stone’s office; see this and this.

^[31]Berlet’s divisive rhetoric targeted “virtually every independent critic of the Imperial State that the reader can name”, which at the time in question (1990-91) included “the Christic Institute, Ramsay Clark, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, David Emory, John Judge, Daniel Brandt” et al. Ace Hughes, Berlet for Beginners, Portland Free Press, July/August 1995.

^[32]Berlet, Chip. Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected, 1999, Political Research Associates.

^[33]“Other conference speakers and moderators at the September 1990 Liberty Lobby convention included attorney Mark Lane, who has drifted into alliances with Liberty Lobby that far transcend his role as the group’s lawyer, and comedian and activist Dick Gregory, whose anti-government rhetoric finds fertile soil on the far right.” Berlet, Chip. Right Woos Left p40

^[34]ibid

^[35]A public expression of gratitude to the publishers is a routine dedication for authors.

^[36]Wilcox, Laird The Watchdogs 1997 self-published.

^[37]Researcher Says ‘Hate’ Fringe Isn’t As Crowded As Claimed, Washington Times, May 9, 2000. p.A2

^[38]NameBase is a cross-indexed database tool for “anti-Imperial” researchers, initiated by Daniel Brandt. Chip Berlet, along with Fletcher Prouty, was on the NameBase Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet, describing Prouty as a “Larouche-defender”, announced his refusal to remain on the same Board. Brandt encouraged Berlet to leave, saying “When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make.” Berlet took three other Board members with him, and a lingering feud percolated for many years after. See this.

^[39]Via “links and ties”, it was common for right-wing rhetoric in the 1960s to label ideological opponents as literally Communist agents embedded within civil rights and other movements. Debates over methodology – such as links and ties – which were frequent in the 1990s, highlighted the expanding scope of identified political “enemies” (a debate again familiar in today’s polarized political and social landscape). This expansion resulted in erroneous claims such as that Prouty held right-wing, or even “extreme right-wing” political views, claims which are unfortunately being currently recycled by a small faction of researchers.Prouty never openly discussed his personal politics, other than to say “the only club I’ve joined is the Rotary Club.” Prouty, in the author’s opinion, could be fairly described as a “mid-century main-street Rotary Club American”.

^[40]Diamond is referred: “to understand where the Liberty Lobby and its supporters are coming from, you have to understand their code language, which seldom if ever attacks Jews directly, but instead refers to ‘the big medical establishment, the big legal establishment, the major international bankers’, all of them controlled by you know who.” The obvious problem with this proposition is that determining what is “code” and what is legitimate criticism is often a wholly subjective enterprise. Also, a “code” requires both the disseminators and the receivers to be “in” on the cipher interpretation.

^[41]The Spotlight “regularly featured articles on such topics as Bible analysis, taxes and fighting the IRS, bankers and how they bleed the middle class, and how the nation is manipulated by the dreaded Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.” p. 85. Flynn, Kevin and Gerhardt, Gary, The Silent Brotherhood: Inside America’s Racist Underground, The Free Press, 1989.

^[42]“we found only rare hints of international Jewish banking conspiracies or the like in The Spotlight.” See this.

^[43](Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Responds to Accusations of Involvement in Right Wing Extremist Groups Interview Date: April 3, 1996. – Col L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site. There is no record of Prouty expressing extremist or racist views, as the researchers cited admit: “Diamond says that Prouty himself has, as far as she has been able to determine, made no public racist or anti-semitic utterances.” “Berlet states that Prouty himself has never made any overt anti-semitic or racist comments…” (typewritten document submitted to Oliver Stone’s production office) “Nothing here shows Prouty to have been a Nazi or an anti-Semite…” John Mcadams. This has not prevented a few contemporary critics from asserting that Prouty was, in fact, anti-semitic. This notion appears to be based on two items: an advance notice for a 1991 Liberty Lobby event which lists Prouty as a prospective speaker (Prouty did not in fact appear); and a 1981 private letter authored by Prouty in which, discussing the looming AWACS deal some months ahead of Reagan’s controversial public announcement, Prouty uses the phrase “Jewish Sgt” during a discussion of potential military logistic compromises associated with computerized systems relying on multiple inputs from different locations. The cherry-picked phrase, as presented, reveals essentially a lack of basic knowledge of the historic issue and perhaps a misunderstanding of the term “anti-semitic”. For a balanced perspective on the AWACS controversy see: Gutfeld, Arnon, The 1981 AWACS Deal: AIPAC and Israel Challenge Reagan, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

August 16, 2023
How Oswald Was Framed for the Murder of Tippit: Part 3
Part 3: The Manipulation of Oswald

During his short adult life, Lee Oswald was a man who was always following orders.

On his 17^th birthday, when Oswald enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, the young Texan signed himself up for a lifetime of taking orders. Through Marine boot camp and while in training in Biloxi as a radar operator, Oswald took orders. This continued through his stint as a radar operator at the Atsugi, Japan air base, from which the CIA flew its U2 spy planes. While in Japan, Oswald also helped to infiltrate the Japanese Communist Party. He was treated for gonorrhea contracted, according to records, “in the line of duty” as a result.

While in the Marines, Oswald was following orders when he studied Russian and sat for Russian proficiency exams. When ready for his first big intelligence assignment, Oswald took a hardship discharge — ostensibly to take care of his mother in Fort Worth, TX — but left almost immediately for Europe to participate in the United States’ fake defector program. The Soviets never bought Oswald’s defector act. The KGB had Lee shipped him off to toil in a radio factory in Minsk where he could be kept under close surveillance, do little harm, and be used for propaganda purposes.

In Minsk, Oswald met a young woman, married, had a child, and eventually applied to return to the United States. The U.S. State Department granted Oswald a loan so he could be repatriated and return to the Dallas-Fort Worth area with his new Russian bride and their child. Oswald would quickly repay this loan although he officially only ever worked at low-paying jobs, and never for very long. Was Oswald receiving cash from an off-the-books employer?

During the first half of 1963, Oswald likely received new instructions to return to New Orleans, his original hometown and birthplace. There, Oswald took a cover job as an oiler greasing coffee machines. Most of the ex-Marine’s time in the Big Easy, however, was spent working under the auspices of ex-Chicago FBI agent and former Assistant Superintendent of the NOPD, Guy Banister. Oswald also collaborated with Banister’s associate David Ferrie, an ex-commercial airlines pilot and Oswald’s former commander in the Civil Air Patrol. While Banister and Ferrie were apparently running a training camp at Lake Pontchartrain for anti-Castro Cuban guerillas, Banister set up Oswald as the secretary and only member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. As an “agent provocateur” assigned to ferret out Castro sympathizers, Oswald handed out Fair Play for Cuba Committee flyers on the streets of downtown New Orleans.

To increase Oswald’s visibility and public reach, in all probability, a fake street fight was staged in early August with “pro-Castro” Oswald and some of Banister’s anti-Castro protégés. This got Oswald arrested for disturbing the peace, but also got him on the evening news. While in NOPD custody, Oswald asked to speak with an FBI agent. An FBI agent did arrive and conversed with Oswald in private for about an hour. Afterwards, at a public hearing, Oswald was fined $10 and released.

A few days later, Oswald was asked to debate Cuban exile Carlos Bringuier, who had knocked Oswald’s leaflets to the ground during their filmed confrontation; along with Ed Butler, executive director of the anti-Castro group Information Council of the Americas (INCA). The debate took place on the WDSU radio show Latin Listening Post. During the discussion, Butler asked Oswald to admit it was true he had defected to the Soviet Union and denounced his U.S. citizenship. Oswald disagreed, explaining he was simply a foreigner who for a time was granted the okay to live and work in the Soviet Union — an unlikely occurrence during the Cold War.

“I was at all times considered an American citizen, and at all times I was in contact with the American embassy,” Oswald explained. “The very fact that I am back in the United States shows that I did not renounce my citizenship. A person who renounces his citizenship becomes legally disqualified from returning to the United States.”

The repatriation loan from the State Department backs up Oswald’s claim.

As the summer of 1963 ended, Oswald was instructed to return to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and take another “killing time’ job — this time as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository adjacent to Dealey Plaza. He also rented a cheap room at an Oak Cliff boarding house while his expectant wife Marina, and daughter, June, stayed with Ruth and Michael Paine in Fort Worth. Lee took the room, a short bus ride from work, under the assumed name O.H. Lee.

Oswald had been willing to spy on and infiltrate Japanese Communists, Soviet Communists, American Communists, and pro-Castro types. He was probably not averse to ongoing plans for the assassination of Fidel Castro.

On November 2, 1963 — less than three weeks before the assassination in Dallas, President Kennedy was supposed to attend a football game at Chicago’s Soldier Field between Army and Air Force. The plan was for the President’s plane to touch down in the Windy City and for him to drive in an open motorcade to the stadium.

However, three days before the President’s planned landing, the Washington, D.C. FBI received a note warning that an assassination team was arriving to shoot the President on his way to the game. The threat became even more real when a landlady reported to authorities that she had seen automatic rifles lying on the beds of a room rented by four men from out of town (supposedly Cubans) — as well as a map of the President’s route from the airport.

Upon being alerted by the FBI, Secret Service personnel on duty in Chicago went into action and tracked down two of the men — who were subsequently interrogated concerning their activities. The detainees protested their innocence, and agents couldn’t connect them to any developing plot. They were released.

Then, to make an already bad situation worse, authorities received word of a credible threat against the President made by a man at a Chicago area diner. The person making that threat was Thomas Arthur Vallee, an ex-Marine and member of the John Birch Society, Vallee boasted he had the weapons and ammo to do the job.

The ex-Marine was put under surveillance, then arrested the morning of JFK’s scheduled visit, which was cancelled. Inside Vallee’s car authorities found a small arsenal of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Valle, it was discovered, worked in an office building that overlooked Kennedy’s planned route.

The similarities between Oswald and Vallee were startling…too close to have been mere coincidence. Vallee would perhaps have made an even more convincing patsy, something akin to a Lee Oswald on steroids. Vallee was more outspoken, more violent, more erratic, and boasted a vastly superior arsenal of weaponry.

Oswald and Vallee shared a lengthy list of items in common, including these:
- were ex-Marines
- had been assigned to U-2 spy plane bases in Japan
- pledged themselves to extremist, radical causes
- suffered from a history of emotional meltdowns
- worked in buildings that overlooked the Presidential motorcade routes
- associated with far-right, anti-Castro Cuban exiles
- helped train anti-Castro Cubans for an armed invasion of their homeland
- were openly critical of how the United States treated its citizens
- were suspected of having ties to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Even more startling, author Edwin Black who first exposed the Chicago Plot, would later reveal a show-stopping piece of intelligence. According to Black’s sources, the original tip forwarded to the FBI about the Chicago Plot had come from a man known only as Lee. Could that have been Lee Harvey Oswald, recently hired order-filler at the Texas School Book Depository? Or perhaps Mr. O.H. Lee, a boarder at Gladys Johnson’s Oak Cliff boarding house on North Beckley.

Several days after Vallee’s arrest, a police informant sat in a Miami hotel room, wearing a wire to secretly record the following conversation with a wealthy political extremist named Joseph Milteer:

From an office building with a high-powered rifle. They will pick up somebody within hours afterwards…Just to throw the public off.

Sometime just after noon on Friday, November 23^rd, Lee Oswald sat in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. Perhaps thinking he had helped save the president in Chicago. Within a few minutes, Lee could hear the noise from the crowds grow louder as the motorcade approached and turned onto Elm Street. A few moments later the fatal shots rang out, then all hell broke loose. According to the official story, a figure appeared in the doorway and barged in to the second floor lunchroom. A motorcycle cop pointed his gun at Lee’s belly and ordered him to come forward. But Mr. Truly came in right after and told the cop, “No, he’s okay. He works here.” The men continued on their way, racing up the stairs. Oswald got his jacket, walked out the front of the TSBD through the glass doors, and headed east on foot

Again, according to the official story, Oswald hopped on the first Oak Cliff bus he could hail…it was for the Marsalis Avenue route. However, as bus 1213 crept back towards Dealey Plaza, traffic became horribly snarled. Another passenger, frustrated at the lack of forward progress, stepped forward to ask the driver for a transfer. Oswald also got up and asked for a transfer, then departed the bus. The Warren Report tells us he walked south for a few blocks to the taxi stand near the Greyhound bus terminal. Lee directed the cab driver to take him to North Beckley in Oak Cliff, the street on which his rooming house was located.

One of the most mysterious people in the entire JFK saga was a Dallas cop named Harry Olsen. Olsen’s girlfriend and future wife was one of Jack Ruby’s strippers. On the night of the assassination, Olsen later admitted he had spent a couple of hours in Jack Ruby’s automobile with the volatile nightclub owner as well as Olsen’s girlfriend, stage named Kathy Kay. Olsen used the time to work Jack, aka Sparky, into a frenzy; repeatedly telling the Carousel Club “host” that somebody needed to get that SOB Oswald. It would be Ruby who would draw the short straw that weekend to do the deed.

What Harry Olsen would not admit is exactly what he was doing during the time JFK and Tippit were shot. Olsen claimed he was off duty, nursing a broken leg that sported a cast, and earning some extra cash by doing a favor for the lawyer friend of another cop. Olsen said he was alone most of November 22^nd guarding an “estate” that belonged to a deceased client of the lawyer. The property was located somewhere on 8^th Avenue in Oak Cliff, just a couple blocks north of 10^th Street where Tippit was gunned down. When pressed, Olsen could not remember the name of the cop who gave him the referral, could not remember the lawyer’s name, could not remember the dead property owner’s name, and could not remember the address of the property. He did remember someone phoned the dead owner to tell her JFK was just shot. Upon learning this news, Olsen said he walked a few blocks away to the apartment of his stripper girlfriend to watch the television coverage. We can venture a guess that Olsen also forgot his leg was supposed to be in a cast. Some weeks after the assassination, Chief Jesse Curry called Olsen into his office to inform the veteran cop he was being fired. When questioned later, Olsen couldn’t remember the reason why. Olsen’s testimony before the Warren Commission was frankly unbelievable and, at times, farcical. It was so suspicious it has led many JFK researchers to believe Olsen was either the cop who Lee’s housekeeper said tooted his horn outside Oswald’s rooming house, or one of the cops in the mystery car seen in the alleyway behind 10^th Street when Tippit was murdered.

Olsen would eventually marry the stripper, move to California, and drop out of sight. But before he did, Olsen was interviewed by Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow. Brownlow asked Olsen many questions, most of which he deftly avoided answering. But at one point, Olsen shook his head and said, “Listen, Big Mike. You need to understand something. A lot of people were following orders that day. Oswald was following orders…”

Another person who was likely following orders on November 22nd was 11-year Dallas police veteran J.D. Tippit. Tippit was sitting in his squad car #10 at Oak Cliff’s Gloco filling station at approximately 11:45 p.m., watching traffic as it came off the Houston Street viaduct from Dealey Plaza and downtown Dallas. Tippit, however, had just reported to his dispatcher he was several miles south at Keist and Bonnie View in his regularly assigned Cedarcrest patrol area. The dispatcher soon called back and ordered Tippit north to central Oak Cliff, since all units close to downtown were being directed to head to Dealey Plaza.

Tippit was likely waiting for a city bus to come off the viaduct. He would follow that bus until an individual named Lee Oswald could get off alone at one of the early stops. Was Tippit’s assignment to pick up Oswald and drop him off at the Texas Theater? Tippit had met Oswald previously at Austin’s Barbeque joint down in his regular patrol area.

The patrolman could see no busses coming. Gloco employees watched as Tippit’s car suddenly pulled out and headed south on Lancaster Avenue at a high rate of speed. At 12:54 p.m. the dispatcher again calls Tippit, who now reports his position — correctly — as Lancaster and Eighth. Despite being thrown a curve ball, Tippit cruises the neighborhood for several minutes, he parks his patrol car facing north next to the Top 10 Records store — barely a block from the theater. Tippit hurries inside and asks to use the store phone. Store employees see Tippit dial a number, listen, but he never speaks. After what must have been six or seven rings, Tippit hangs up and quickly goes back outside to his patrol car.

Meanwhile, Oswald has paid his entrance fee and is seen by manager Butch Burroughs, who later recalled how Oswald slipped in between “1:00 and 1:07.” Patron Jack Davis watches curiously as Oswald keeps changing seats, sitting next to one person after the other in the mostly empty movie house. Davis corroborated Burroughs’ timeline as to when Oswald was in the theater. Davis described how Oswald had sat next to him, did not say a word, then got up after a few minutes to sit elsewhere. Oswald reportedly even sat next to an obviously pregnant woman — who soon got up, left, and never returned. In retrospect, Davis thought Oswald had been looking for someone — someone he didn’t personally know.

After several futile minutes of searching, Oswald went to the lobby and purchased popcorn from Butch Burroughs — approaching the time when Officer Tippit would be killed blocks away.

When Oswald’s wallet was emptied later that day, authorities would curiously discover the torn halves of two one-dollar bills. Both items later disappeared, but they were noted within the inventory paperwork concerning the suspect’s possessions. Many observers, including JFK researcher John Armstrong, have pointed out that the matching of torn half dollar bills is a tool used in spy craft for clandestine meetings.

Over next to the Top 10 Records store, Officer Tippit sat in his patrol car listening to police radio traffic regarding the flurry of activity at Dealey Plaza and the Texas School Book Depository.

Suddenly, Tippit’s dispatcher was hailing him. There were reports of a fight at 10^th & Marsalis. One participant was said to have been stabbed and subsequently thrown into the back seat of a blue sedan, possibly a Mercury Monterey, which then immediately left the scene.

You won’t find any record in DPD files on this incident, but according to witnesses at the corner of 10^th % Marsalis, it happened…and it happened very close to the time Tippit was killed.

Tippit acknowledged he was responding, put the 1963 Ford Galaxie in gear, pulled out, checked traffic as he eased into the intersection at Jefferson, and stepped on the gas. Employees at Top Ten recall Tippit peeling out and rocketing across Jefferson, headed north towards Sunset and next 10^th Street.

The father of three was thinking how he had no partner that day, and not much in the way of back up except William Mentzel who was distracted by an accident. As J.D. blew through Sunset and arrived at W. 10^th, he slowed to turn right heading east towards Marsalis. Tippit observed a car headed west towards him on 10^th — and away from the scene of the disturbance. It matched, in general, the description of the car said to have left the fight with a stabbing victim in the back seat.

As the suspect car passed S. Bishop, Tippit turned left and fell in behind the target vehicle. Without turning on his flashing lights and using standard police procedure, Tippit sped up, passed the sedan, then forced the car to the curb.

Tippit jumped out, signaled the driver to stay put, and rushed to look into the auto’s back seat. Nothing, nobody there. He had just wasted precious moments stopping the wrong car. Without saying a word to the startled man behind the wheel, Tippit raced back to his patrol car, reversed course, and sped off to the east. The motorist, an insurance man named Andrews, would later describe how the patrolman–badge name TIPPIT–looked upset and was acting wild.

Just after this incident the encounnter with whoever killed Tippit took place. J.D. eased over towards the sidewalk, followeing a man on foot, then tooted his horn. The pedestrian turned, acted surprised, and Tippit beckoned him over to the car. The man approached, bent over, and looked through the front passenger window. Only the car’s little vent window was open.

Tippit opened his car door, slowly climbed out, and adjusted his cap. Tippit reached back and put his right hand on the butt of his service revolver, Western-style. As he slowly made his way to the front of DPD car #10, the young man paralleled him on the passenger-side of the vehicle, easing forward.

Suddenly, out of the corner of his eye, Tippit caught the man’s sudden movement, reaching under his jacket to draw a gun. Tippit stepped back and began to turn awkwardly to his right, his own revolver clearing the holster. But with his right hand facing the gunman Tippit was like a left-handed ballplayer at shortstop. The gunman had the drop on Tippit as well as the better angle and position. The last thing J.D. saw were the muzzle flashes as his world faded into nothingness.

As the gunman looked down the barrel of his .38, the patrolman dropped out of sight behind the front driver’s side fender. He jump-stepped back to the sidewalk, adrenalin pumping, and began to hustle away from the dead patrolman’s car.

Helen Markham screamed: “He shot him! He’s dead! Call the police!”

The killer glanced at a woman standing catty corner across the intersection. Looking around, he saw no one else coming — yet. “Poor dumb cop,” the shooter muttered out loud. He jumped the hedges and kept on going, never noticing the crouching cab driver or even his cab.

After purposefully disposing of the shells–and because of the pattern in which they were found, it is highly unlikely they were ejected at the same time. It is much more likely they were thrown down by the killer. The gunman now automatically cut diagonally across Patton from the east sidewalk to the west sidewalk, picking up his pace as he headed south towards Jefferson. He snapped shut the revolver’s cylinder and pointed the gun upwards but at the ready — in a raised pistol position. A stocky white man in a white shirt and tie, Ted Callaway, had come out from the car lot’s office and was just reaching the eastern sidewalk. “Hey, man!” the witness yelled. “What the hell’s goin’ on?” The killer did reply to this, but no one knows what he actually said.

Back at the murder scene on 10^th Street a crowd was quickly forming. Reserve Sergeant Kenneth Croy was the first DPD officer to arrive on site. The ambulance was already there, and they were loading Tippit’s body for the race to Methodist Hospital. Someone in the crowd may have handed Croy a wallet at this time, or perhaps Croy arrived at 10^th & Patton already in possession of the wallet. As the ambulance pulled out, Sgt. Croy started taking statements from witnesses. Including the nearly hysterical Mrs. Markham, who by this time had placed her shoes on top of Tippit’s car #10 to avoid getting them splashed in the fallen cop’s blood.

An 8” x 10” crime scene photograph depicting J.D. Tippit’s patrol car was later autographed for the FBI historian Farris Rookstool. It was signed by Jim Leavelle, Bob Barrett, T.F. Bowley, Roy Nichols, and Kenneth H. Croy – who reportedly wrote: “First on the scene, recovered Oswald’s wallet there too.”

Witness Domingo Benavides has secured an empty Winston cigarette pack in which he placed the first two shells discarded by the killer. Barbara and Virginia Davis recovered the last two shells along the Patton Avenue side of their rented apartments later in the afternoon.

At 1:40 p.m. Captain Westbrook arrived, but first went immediately to the area behind Ballew’s Texaco where the gunman had last been spotted. Westbrook will involve himself in the discovery of the discarded Eisenhower jacket, then continue to the Tippit murder scene where Officer Croy will hand him “Oswald’s” wallet. Westbrook will show the wallet and its contents to FBI Agent Bob Barrett and several other law enforcement officials — all while being filmed for posterity. But before the end of November 22^nd, the alleged 10^th St. “Oswald” wallet will disappear for all eternity.

Wallet, shells, jacket…all evidence pointing to a single person who must have represented one of the most incompetent criminals in the history of American law enforcement, Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald will soon be arrested with the alleged murder weapon in his possession in a darkened neighborhood theater. All so very convenient and incriminating.

As the minutes pass, more and more police units flood the central Oak Cliff area as news of a cop killing is broadcast. They arrive in force, racing up and down Jefferson Boulevard like a swarm of angry hornets darting around looking for someone or something to sting. They are about to be pointed directly at a likely suspect sitting in the Texas Theater with a loaded .38 concealed under his raggedy long-sleeved brown shirt.

Store manager Johnny Brewer couldn’t help but notice the man in the lobby of his store acting suspiciously. He called for store clerk Tommy Rowe to come out to the counter to look. As another police car whizzed by, siren wailing, the man ducked back out of the lobby and headed west down the sidewalk towards the Texas Theater.

“That guy’s up to something,” Brewer remarked. “It might have to do with all these police cars racing around.”

“Why don’t you go follow him,” the clerk suggested. “I’ll cover the store.”

Johnny Brewer opened the door and walked through the store lobby and out onto the sidewalk. He watched as the man hesitated in front of the theater, then hurried in. Brewer walked down to the enclosed ticket booth. A concerned Julia Postal was on duty listening to her radio for more news about the assassination.

“Excuse me, but did you just sell some guy a ticket?”

“No, not since about the time the movie started.”

“So, you didn’t just see anybody go in with or without paying for a ticket?”

“No.”

“I think you should call the police.”

Ms. Postal hesitates. She doesn’t want to cause a fuss over somebody sneaking into the movie for free. The police already have enough excitement going on this afternoon anyway. Butch the manager will see the guy, ask for his ticket, and send him back out if he doesn’t have one.

Brewer insists, and after a few more moments of discussion, Ms. Postal acquiesces and makes the call to Dallas Police. Meanwhile, down at the Hardy Shoe Store, clerk Tommy Rowe, a good pal of nightclub owner Jack Ruby, is also putting through a call concerning a suspicious man seen entering the Texas Theater. Several additional mysterious calls will also be received by Dallas Police during this timeframe alerting them to a suspicious individual entering the theater.

Inside the movie house, manager Butch Burroughs is still working the concession stand where Lee Oswald had purchased popcorn some 15 minutes ago. Burroughs hears one of the swinging front doors opening and closing shut. However, he sees no one walking past him in the snack area. Burroughs would later explain the person almost assuredly must have climbed the stairs by the entrance to take a seat up in the balcony. Oswald, meanwhile, remains downstairs seated in the main or orchestra section of the theater.

Based on reports of a suspicious man observed at the Texas Theater, DPD will send at least 15 officers along with several vehicles to the scene. Capt. Westbrook was one of the first to arrive. “Pinky” Westbrook parked his blue unmarked police car directly out front — strange considering Westbrook told the Warren Commission someone had given him a ride out to Oak Cliff. Police will surround all theater exits while the lights are turned on and Johnny Brewer is reportedly escorted onstage by two policemen. Brewer pointed the cops to a man in the back of the theater he said was the individual he had just witnessed sneaking in without paying. Police begin to systematically work their way from front to back, asking each patron to stand up and provide ID. They are perhaps hoping the suspect might attempt to make a foolish dash for an exit. He didn’t, instead sitting coolly and calmly as the cops moved in.

Years later, Tommy Rowe would tell family and friends that it was he who had pointed out Oswald to the officers, not Brewer. Tommy would also be the friend who moved into Jack Ruby’s apartment on Ewing after he was arrested for murdering Lee Oswald.

When the officers get to Oswald’s row of seats, they ask the young man to stand up and show some ID. He appeared to be complying, stood up, but then yelled, “This is it!” and threw a punch at Office Nick MacDonald. MacDonald and Oswald scuffled as nearby cops jumped in. Oswald had allegedly made a move for the .38 Special S&W revolver tucked in his waistband. The cops pounded Oswald for a bit before subduing him, resulting in his infamous and much photographed swollen left eye.

“I am not resisting arrest!” Oswald shouts as he suddenly wises up and realizes the immediate danger he might be in. “I protest this police brutality!” the suspect yells to any witnesses who might be standing nearby and watching the drama unfold.

The police quickly hustled Oswald out the front doors of the old theater. A growing, unruly mob of local citizens greet them raucously under the marquee advertising the war flick matinee double feature. Detectives carry the slender suspect towards Captain Westbrook’s unmarked dark blue automobile — the one he later testifies he never drove to Oak Cliff. Curiously, Westbrook, the ranking officer in charge, instructed the detectives to throw an article of clothing over Oswald’s face to hide the ex-Marine’s identity. Why? What reason would the captain have for protecting the anonymity of a suspected cop-killer? The detectives pushed Oswald into the middle of the rear seat, piled in, and off the vehicle sped to downtown headquarters.

Meanwhile, a far-less viewed minor drama was playing itself out upstairs in the balcony of the Texas Theater. A second young man was in the process of being arrested and brought downstairs — but this individual would be led instead out the rear exit and into the alley where additional police vehicles sat at the waiting.

A very confused theater manager, Butch Burroughs, watched as officers now roughly escorted a second young man from the premises. That young white man, according to Burroughs, “looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.”

Hobby store owner Bernard Haire operated Bernie’s Hobby House two doors east of the theater. When he heard the growing commotion out front, Haire went to investigate. However, Haire couldn’t see over the dense and unruly crowd, so he walked back through his store and peered into the back alley. Sure enough, the alleyway was filled with cop cars, but not much was happening there. Just when Haire was ready to return inside, one of the theater’s big rear-exit metal doors slammed open and out came some officers guiding a young white man into the back of a squad car. Haire described the man as being flushed, as if he’d just been in an altercation. The police car left, suspect securely inside. For decades, Mr. Haire believed he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Oswald.

In 1987, when Haire accidentally learned the truth that Oswald had been taken out the front doors of the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest — photos convinced him it was true — the hobby store proprietor next asked the $64,000,000 question.

“Well, if I didn’t see Oswald, then just who did I see?”

We have no answer for Mr. Haire, except to mention one curious fact. No second Texas Theater arrest was ever documented. The official police report, however, describes the suspect being arrested in the balcony, while all witnesses clearly agree he was arrested downstairs in the main seating area and brought out front to Cpt. Westbrook’s waiting car.

Within two hours of the President’s death, J. Edgar Hoover already believed his FBI had the case solved. Hoover would go on the premise that JFK had been assassinated by Lee Oswald and Oswald alone, whom he called a “mean-minded individual…in the category of a nut.”

Given the benefit of decades of hindsight, some Hoover critics might opine that the former FBI director had given a more accurate description of himself rather than the suspect in custody. Allowing for the fact that Hoover had in 1960 written a memo warning his agents that someone might be using the so-called Soviet defector’s identity back in the United States, how could Hoover have been so sure of Oswald’s guilt so quickly?

When Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after his arrest, having never left Dallas Police Headquarters alive, Hoover dictated a memo that Sunday afternoon that read, “The thing I am so concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach [Deputy Attorney General under RFK] is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

Nicholas Katzenbach wrote the following day, November 25 — as the President, Tippit, and Oswald were all being laid to rest — that “the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”

President Johnson, now ensconced in the White House as the new Commander-in-Chief, was more than happy to see this “something” issued, and quickly. Thus, was born the Warren Commission and its resulting Warren Report, with its pre-determined outcome already decided before Day One of the proceedings. This is the sort of whitewash that would inevitably cook up such inconceivable nonsense such as the “magic” or single-bullet theory.

The Warren Commission was never intended to be an investigation. Rather, it was a publicity stunt concocted to sell a bill of deceptive goods to a highly traumatized American public. The ruse succeeded, at least for a while. As they might say, it was good enough for government work.
August 11, 2023