Blog

  • 1964 Norman Redlich Memo


    April 27, 1964

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: J. Lee Rankin

    FROM: Norman Redlich


    The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.

    Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.

    As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

    Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing.

    We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor’s testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.

    Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.

    We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

    I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor’s diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

    I should add that the facts which we now have in our Possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

    It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

  • Jeff Greenfield, If Kennedy Lived


    Many years ago, in an America that seems very remote from the country we inhabit today, Jeff Greenfield co-wrote an interesting and valuable book. That book was co-written with journalist Jack Newfield. Both men had worked for Senator Robert Kennedy. In 1972, they published a book entitled A Populist Manifesto. It was subtitled, “The Making of a New Majority”. The book’s title echoed off of the Marx/Engels volume, A Communist Manifesto. It wasn’t quite as extreme as that volume, since the American populist movement was never communist in nature. But there is no doubt it had a leftist agenda. For instance, it decried the failures of the tax code to properly collect tax receipts from corporate giants like General Electric. The overall aim was to forge a new majority: a “coalition of self-interest” among the young urban middle class, poor racial minorities, and the Democratic labor movement. There was no denying the egalitarian theme of the book. The aim was to redistribute wealth and power through things like medical insurance for all, reorganization of the legal system, the splitting up of giant corporations, nationalization of large major public utilities, reducing national defense expenditures, and, ironically, in light of Greenfield’s position today, diversification of the broadcast media.

    As I said, I read the book as a young man. At the time I was working in the George McGovern campaign. I recall wrestling with several of its large, radical ideas. Many of which seemed attractive and almost common sensical to me. And back in the political environment of 1972, neither the title, nor the ideas, seemed out of place. But, of course, in a huge landslide, Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern later that year. And if one follows the career of Mr. Greenfield, it appears that the Yale Law School graduate got the message. Greenfield was 25 when his boss Senator Robert Kennedy was gunned down in Los Angeles. He was 29 when he co-wrote A Populist Manifesto. Socially and culturally, Woodstock signaled the end of the sixties: the anger and frustration of the betrayal and murders of the sixties would now transmute into an ethos of rock music and drugs. But in historical terms, the McGovern campaign was really the last stand for the sixties liberalism Bobby Kennedy represented in 1968. In fact, at the 1968 Democratic convention, McGovern was nominated as a kind of stand-in for Robert Kennedy’s constituency. And Frank Mankiewicz, who announced the death of RFK in Los Angeles, was one of the top managers of McGovern’s campaign. The Democratic Party has never really been the same since. Neither has the nation.

    As noted above, after his boss was killed and McGovern was swamped, Greenfield got the message. Books like A Populist Manifesto were not the way to get your ticket punched in a polity headed by RFK’s antithesis, Richard Nixon. Greenfield then went to work for several years in the office of political consultant David Garth. Garth was one of the most successful consultants in the history of New York City. He was a key figure-perhaps the key figure– in helping to elect Mayors John Lindsay, Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. Garth was a master of the use of television and what came to be called, “the sound bite”. Garth kept a low profile for himself. He shunned publicity and operated under the radar as he molded the city’s fate. Therefore, he was something of a political chameleon who worked for both Democrats and Republicans. Whatever his own political beliefs were, they remained a mystery. But its safe to say this: If Greenfield was now working for a man who’s main goal was winning, and if some of his winners included the likes of Giuliani, then its pretty clear that the law school graduate was now moderating the ideas he once advocated in A Populist Manifesto.

    After his work for Garth, Greenfield was now ready to start on a third career. With the lessons learned in Garth’s office, he repackaged himself as a “political analyst”. And he now sold himself as such to the media. He started at ABC News in the eighties, working primarily on Nightline. He then went to CNN for about a decade. In 2007, he was hired as a “political correspondent” at CBS. Today, he does things like conduct public discussions in New York with people like Fox’s Charles Krauthammer and Time’s Joe Klein. In other words, after starting his career as being concerned with challenging the establishment, Greenfield has now become a part of that establishment. To see this in bold letters, one has to go no further than his book on the 2000 election heist in Florida, Oh Waiter: One Order of Crow. That tome just might be one of the very worst published on that disastrous election: superficial, breezy, lazy, and worst of all, accepting of almost everything the MSM broadcast about the episode. If one wants to see just how bad Greenfield’s book really is, just read Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, or Jews for Buchanon by John Nichols. The first actually shows how the conspiracy to steal that election worked; the second is a good catalogue on all the irregularities which occurred during the entire months long drama. Which, of course, concluded with one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent memory. In 2005, Lance Dehaven-Smith wrote The Battle for Florida, a very good retrospective on all the failures of local and federal government that allowed a crime like this to occur. All of these works, and many more, make Greenfield’s book look like a grade school reader. And let us not forget, it was the heist of this election from Al Gore that directly caused the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Which was a completely manufactured and unnecessary war. That war’s repercussions are still being felt today. In both Iraq and the USA. Greenfield’s book does not even begin to fill in the outlines of that crime or its epic tragic results.

    All of the above is appropriate background to Greenfield’s attempt at an alternative history of the Kennedy presidency. Before we address the work itself, the reviewer should note a bit about the genre. Alternative history tries to imagine what the world would have been like if some crucial event had not occurred. There are two ways to approach the subject. One is in a fact based, scholarly manner in which alternative information is argued and debated for value. A good example of this would be James Blight’s excellent book about whether or not President Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, Virtual JFK. A looser, more narrative type of alternative history would be exemplified by Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America. In that book, a fine novelist reimagines America if isolationist and closet anti-Semite Charles Lindbergh had been elected president in 1940. According to Roth, Lindbergh then negotiated a non-aggression understanding with Hitler and embarked on his own Jewish pogroms. The second method allows for more fictional devices and looser interpretations.

    Greenfield’s is much more in the second category than in the first. In fact, he wrote a previous book of alternative history called Then Everything Changed in 2011. I did not read that book, and after reading this one I am glad I did not. First, Greenfield does not have the literary gifts to do this kind of thing well. As noted above, Philip Roth was a fine novelist. To put it kindly, Jeff Greenfield is not. There is very little in this book to mark the gifts of fine narrative construction. Some traits a good novelist should have are the ability to draw characters, to depict credible and memorable dialogue, to make a narrative flow, to construct a believable backdrop to his story, and to build drama (and perhaps suspense). For me Greenfield’s book is written at the level of The Novel 101 in all of those categories. And even at that level, it is the work of only an average student. Therefore, intrinsically, the book has very little gripping power.

    Which leaves us with the choices Greenfield made in his version of a Kennedy presidency that lasted two terms. First of all, Greenfield has Kennedy surviving the assassination attempt because the Secret Service put the plexiglass bubble top on the limousine. Kennedy then goes on to Parkland Hospital where his life is saved by the doctors there. In his version, Oswald is then shot at the Texas Theater. Robert Kennedy then ponders if anyone else was involved in the murder attempt. But according to Greenfield, he is the only man of consequence who does so. In fact, one of the more bizarre things about the book is this: it’s President Kennedy who tries to discourage Bobby from investigating the case. In other words, Greenfield has JFK offering up the Warren Commission’s case against Oswald.

    This takes us up to about the end of Chapter 2. And even at this early point in the book, any responsible reviewer has to note some odd choices Greenfield made. In the author’s introduction to the book, remembering who Greenfield is and was, he says two predictable things about what will follow. First, he finds the case against Oswald to be compelling. Remember, this is a Yale Law School graduate saying this. Secondly, he is not going to be writing a hagiography about the Kennedys. These two qualifications clearly mark the book throughout. And the first one seriously discolors the opening two chapters.

    For instance, although Greenfield’s version of Oswald, like the real Oswald, never had a trial, its pretty clear where Mr. MSM stands on that issue. In his discussion of the Women’s Center or the Trade Mart as Kennedy’s ultimate speaking destination that day, he writes that if the former had been chosen, there would have been no sixth floor sniper. The author has Oswald also killing Officer Tippit. At the Texas Theater, Greenfield has Oswald pulling a gun before he is killed by Officer McDonald. As more than one commentator has demonstrated, including Gil DeJesus, this whole scenario, with Oswald trying to take a shot at a policeman, was very likely manufactured by the Dallas Police to make Oswald appear like a belligerent defendant who was capable of killing someone. (See here for the case.)

    But along the way in these opening two chapters, Greenfield shows us even further how questionable and weakly scaffolded his alternative history really is. In depicting the assassination, he says that Roy Kellerman’s first reaction was to throw himself over President Kennedy. One wonders how many times the author has seen the Zapruder film. Because there is no evidence on that film for Kellerman ever contemplating any such act. And further, he would have had to throw himself over Governor John Connally to get to Kennedy.

    And Greenfield has no qualms about walking over the dead body of his former boss. In his discussion of who Robert Kennedy may have thought killed his brother, he writes that the Attorney General knew about the CIA plots to kill Castro. As many, many others have written the problem with this is that is clashes with the best evidence we have on the matter. That is the CIA’s own Inspector General report, which says such was not the case. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 327-28) And also, there is J. Edgar Hoover’s memorandum of his meeting with Robert Kennedy. Hoover had stumbled upon the plots 2 years later and alerted RFK to his knowledge of Sam Giancana’s participation in them. This occurred when the Bureau found out about Robert Maheu’s illegal attempts to help Gianacana with a personal problem. When the FBI found out about their past association with the CIA plots to kill Castro, Hoover briefed RFK about the matter. Kennedy revealed nothing but surprise and anger. (ibid, p. 327) When he called in the CIA for further briefing, the same reaction was exhibited. As the briefer wrote, “If you have seen Mr. Kennedy’s eyes get steely and his jaw set and his voice get low and precise you get a definite feeling of unhappiness.” (ibid) The CIA had to brief him because he didn’t know about the plots.

    As this reviewer noted in his essay, “The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy”, since about 1975 and the Church Committee hearings, there has been an orchestrated, never-ending campaign to reverse both the CIA’s and the Committee’s finding in this regard. Which was that the CIA planned and executed these plots independently. Greenfield goes along with this campaign against his former boss.

    In Chapter 3, Greenfield has Vice-President Lyndon Johnson resigning office over scandals involving his former assistant Bobby Baker and insurance salesman Don Reynolds. In Greenfield’s scenario, Abe Fortas and Clark Clifford go to Johnson and tell him that Bobby Kennedy is bringing pressure on Life Magazine to go ahead and publicize these charges against Johnson. Therefore, Johnson resigns in January of 1964. Its clear that Greenfield got most of his material for this episode from Robert Caro’s book, The Passage of Power.

    In Chapter 4, Greenfield has President Kennedy, now healed, returning to Washington and addressing congress. But he also returns to the idea of Robert Kennedy wrestling with the possibility that Oswald may not have been working by himself. But they way the author presents this is classic MSM cliché:

    It was unimaginable to him that a single insignificant twerp of a man like Lee Harvey Oswald could have struck the most powerful figure in the world. But the more he and his team of investigators looked, the harder it was to fit any of the likely suspects with the facts.

    Note first, Greenfield uses the whole banal adage of the psychological difficulty of accepting a loser like Oswald as the assassin of a great man like Kennedy as his starting point. In other words, it’s not the evidence that is the problem, it’s the paradigm. Well, a writer can do that if he recites the whole warmed over Warren Commission creed as gospel.

    Which is what Greenfield does next. He presents the whole Commission case to the reader. Just as someone like Arlen Specter, or more in line with Greenfield’s profession, Tom Brokaw, would. He says CE 399, the Magic Bullet, was traced to the rifle found on the sixth floor. He then adds that the rifle was traced to Oswald who ordered it under an assumed name. He then goes even further and writes that it was this rifle which Oswald used to fire on retired General Edwin Walker. Then, apparently using Howard Brennan, Greenfield writes that witnesses saw a man fitting the Oswald description on the sixth floor moments before the assassination. He then tops it all off with a crescendo that would have had David Belin beaming. He writes that it was an undeniable fact that Oswald shot and killed Officer Tippit, and had tried to kill the officer who arrested him at the Texas Theater.

    Now to go through this whole litany of half-truths and outright deceptions would take much more length and depth than this book deserves. I have already linked to a source which discredits the last claim. But briefly, to say that the Tippit case leaves no room for doubt is a bit daffy. For instance, the bullets used in that shooting could never be matched to the alleged revolver used by Oswald. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 101) And further, there is no evidence that Oswald ever picked up that handgun from Railroad Express Agency, as the Commission says he did. (ibid, p. 104) And perhaps Greenfield does not know it, but someone dropped Oswald’s wallet with an Alek Hidell alias in it at the Tippit scene. Because according to the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police took Oswald’s wallet in the car driving away from the Texas Theater. (ibid, pgs. 101-102) And to say that Oswald shot at Walker ignores the fact that Oswald was never accused of doing that until eight months afterwards. And the only way you can accuse him of that is by changing the bullet that was recovered from the scene of Walker’s house. (ibid, pgs. 79-80) Further, the best witness to the Walker shooting, young Kirk Coleman, said he saw two men escaping from the scene after the shooting. Both drove separate cars and neither resembled Oswald. Further, according to the Commission, Oswald did not drive.

    To further cut off any possibility of a conspiracy, Greenfield writes that Oswald’s only link to anti-Castro Cubans was a clumsy attempt to infiltrate them. This, of course, refers to Oswald’s confrontation with Carlos Bringuier on Canal Street. An incident which drew a lot of publicity for Oswald, even though it was quite innocuous. But this can only be categorized as the “only link” if one disregards a rather important piece of evidence. Namely the Corliss Lamont pamphlet which was stamped with the address “544 Camp Street”. This was found among Oswald’s belongings upon his arrest for the altercation with Bringuier. As anyone who has studied this case knows, that stamped address was a ticking bomb. Because it happened to be one of the addresses to Guy Banister’s office. And that office housed many Cuban exiles. Further, there were numerous credible witnesses who placed Oswald at that address and/or with Banister. And since Banister was involved with both the Bay of Pigs invasion and Operation Mongoose, Oswald had many opportunities to intersect with Cubans working for the CIA, for example Sergio Arcacha Smith. (See Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, by James DiEugenio, pgs. 109-16)

    As noted above, one of the most repugnant parts of the book is that the author actually has President Kennedy trying to talk the Attorney General out of investigating further. So in addition to smearing RFK with the Castro plots, he tries to put the seal of approval on the preposterous Warren Report with John F. Kennedy speaking from the grave.

    From here, Greenfield now covers all the MSM tracks. Like Philip Shenon, he writes that the FBI and CIA were careless in their surveillance of Oswald. And this is what allowed him to kill President Kennedy. He specifically says the CIA lost track of Oswald when he returned to Dallas. In the sentence before this, Greenfield writes something artfully inaccurate. He says that Oswald had visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City “just a few months before the shooting of the president.” (p. 60 of the e-book edition.) Oswald was in Mexico City seven weeks before the assassination. Not a few months. But that “error” makes it easier to say the CIA lost track of him in the meantime. When, according to the Commission, Oswald returned to Dallas right after leaving Mexico City. This allows Greenfield to avoid the whole can of worms that Mexico City opens up for defenders of the official story.

    Greenfield then notes the whole James Hosty incident with the destroyed note allegedly left at FBI HQ in Dallas by Oswald before the assassination. Hosty was ordered to deep-six the note about three days after the assassination. Greenfield writes that if this information about Oswald leaving a threatening note at FBI HQ had been given to the Secret Service, they may have been interested in knowing Oswald’s whereabouts during the motorcade. Well, maybe, maybe not. After all, what happened with the Secret Service in the wake of the thwarting of the plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago? Answer: Nothing. (Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 266) Greenfield avoids that problem by not mentioning a word about the Chicago attempt.

    The above summarizes the lengths Greenfield goes to in camouflaging the true circumstances of Kennedy’s murder. Let us now review what the author does with his version of Kennedy’s two terms in the presidency. Make no mistake, for the most part, Greenfield continues the agenda he showed on the assassination as he deals with Kennedy’s presidency. For instance, the author provides a brief and sketchy annotation section at the end in which he lists some of the sources he used in the book. Two of his main sources for Kennedy’s presidency are Richard Reeves’ President Kennedy: Profile of Power, and Nick Bryant’s The Bystander: John F. Kennedy and the Struggle for Black Equality. Again, if one wanted to present a Fox version of President Kennedy, one could hardly do better than this choice. First for his overall presidency, second for his civil rights campaign.

    Dealing with the latter, in my review of Larry Sabato’s book, The Kennedy Half Century, I demonstrated just how much Kennedy did for the civil rights struggle in less than three years. And how this was previewed by what he did in the senate. I also named three good books on this subject. All of them are ignored by Greenfield. I then presented the evidence that Kennedy had done more for civil rights in less than one term in office than the previous 18 presidents had done in a century. A combination of the regressive right and the loopy left (Bryant was the foreign correspondent for the The Guardian), wants to disguise that historical fact. They cannot. (Click here for that review and scroll to section 3.)

    As for Reeves, his book was so bad I couldn’t finish it. It seemed to me to largely be a response by an establishment journalist to the depiction of Kennedy as shown in Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And when Tom Brokaw presented his 2-hour special on Kennedy’s assassination last year, Reeves was trotted out to neutralize the effect of NSAM 263 on the Vietnam War. Reeves said that if only concerned things like cooks and kitchen help. Which is nothing but fiction. But these are the kinds of people who Greenfield uses as sources in his book.

    So its little surprise that the image presented of Kennedy here is that of a moderate conservative. For instance, because he does not want to be perceived as being too “out there” on civil rights, Greenfield’s Kennedy proposes a welfare-to-work program. This way he can negate any white backlash by saying the program is not targeted or black Americans. At his 1964 acceptance speech, Kennedy names a new theme for his second term. He dumps the title New Frontier for the New Patriotism. Greenfield actually then has Kennedy using a line from Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

    But that is not enough for Greenfield. He actually has Kennedy proclaiming, “This is a conservative country at heart…Why can’t these damn conservatives understand a tax cut will give us so much growth, we’ll actually have more revenue. Its so obvious.” If Kennedy ever said anything like this, I have never come across it. The story behind Kennedy’s tax cut was not at all similar to what the Reagan tax cut was. Walter Heller, a Keynesian economist, designed Kennedy’s tax cut. Heller would have never gotten within ten miles of Reagan’s White House. Why? Because he used to poke fun at Milton Friedman. Kennedy’s tax cut was designed to speed up both growth and productivity. It was not weighted towards the upper classes. In fact it slightly favored the working class and middle class. After discussing the issue with Heller, Kennedy thought this was the best way to get the economy moving immediately, with a demand-side stimulus program. (In fact, Kennedy first thought of a New Deal type government-spending program.) And if Kennedy ever thought the program would pay for itself, I have never seen that quote either. In fact, it did not. (See Timothy Noah, The New Republic, 10/12/2012) As for promoting his tax cut, this speech is about as far as he went rhetorically in catering to the business class. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9057)

    Greenfield’s take on Vietnam is a decidedly mixed bag. He does have Kennedy withdrawing from Southeast Asia and flying to Moscow to cement a deal about this. But this is only after he writes “As president, he had pressed the military for a more assertive strategy in Vietnam.” Since the Pentagon wanted to insert combat troops, and Kennedy refused to do so, then this “assertive strategy” did not amount to much. In fact, it was fairly marginal. He then adds, “In his inclination to take the offensive, Kennedy was reflecting a long-standing national consensus that the loss of any territory to a communist insurgency was a threat to every other nation in the region.” In other words, Kennedy was a believer in the Domino Theory. As no less than McGeorge Bundy concluded after much study of the declassified records, this is simply not true. (See Gordon Goldstein’s Lessons in Disaster, a good book that, predictably, Greenfield ignores.) In fact, Greenfield actually implies that the reason Kennedy did do a deal in Vietnam was so the government of South Vietnam could not do one first.

    According to Greenfield, Kennedy could not get his civil rights bill through congress. (An idea that is neutralized by Thurston Clarke who used interviews with congressional leaders of the time for his information.) So LBJ calls Kennedy and recommends going with a crew of black Americans who were war heroes to shame congress into acting. As the reader can see, Greenfield is now stage-managing JFK like Dick Morris did Bill Clinton.

    Greenfield does mention that Kennedy was going to try an opening to Red China. (p. 174) And this, plus the Vietnam deal, ignites a plot to get rid of Kennedy. Headed by James Angleton, it threatens to expose his dalliance with Mary Meyer to the press. And, of course, Greenfield buys the Timothy Leary drug angle to this story also. One which Leary himself forgot about for almost two decades. The plotters decide to use reporter Clark Mollenhoff to expose the story. But Bobby Kennedy hears about it first. He then brings pressure on the newspaper not to print the tale. This kills the story.

    But because people in the press heard about what RFK had done, they give the Kennedys a bad press until 1968. Therefore, RFK does not run in 1968. The two men who do run are Hubert Humphrey and a man who Greenfield apparently very much admires, Ronald Reagan. We don’t learn who won. At the very end, Jackie Kennedy decides to leave her husband.

    This is the worst kind of alternative history. Because it’s an alternative that is seriously colored by the view from the present. More specifically, those who won and those who lost. With a decided bias in favor of those who won. Therefore it tells us more about today than about the past. What makes it offensive is that the author got his start in politics by working for one of those who lost. And today, that seems to mean little to him.

    Here, Jeff Greenfield shows us just how bad the MSM can be. Even with the freedom to write an imaginary history, he still can’t come close to telling the truth.

  • Jeffrey Sachs, To Move The World

    Jeffrey Sachs, To Move The World

    Jeffery Sachs is a professor of economics at Columbia University. He is a Ph. D. graduate of Harvard. At the age of 28, he became a tenured, full professor of economics at Harvard. Sachs spent about two decades there before switching to Columbia in 2002. He is the author of three bestselling books: The End of Poverty, Economics for a Crowded Planet, and The Price of Civilization. He is quite controversial in his third career: as an advisor to many different countries on shifting over from a collectivist to a free enterprise system. This includes the nations of Poland, Slovenia, Estonia and the USSR. He has been named, by both Time and Vanity Fair, as one of the hundred most influential people on the contemporary American scene. Today, he is very much concerned with creating what he calls sustainable environments. That is economies, which grow, benefit all citizens, are non-polluting, and use energy that is not solely hydrocarbon based. He is clearly one of the most influential economists in America. Perhaps in the world.

    Last year, he authored a book called To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace. In the Preface to his book, he writes that he based part of a series of 2007 lectures for the BBC on Kennedy’s famous 1963 American University speech. (Sachs calls it the Peace Speech) This, of course, is the speech that so influenced Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable and which he included as an appendix to the book. (Sachs includes it as one of the four speeches he appends to the end of this book.) He also adds that he met Ted Sorenson at Columbia and the two became friends. Sorenson told him that the American University speech was his favorite. The two were then going to cooperate on a book, but Sorenson passed away. So Sachs completed the work on his own.

    The result is an uneven work. Sachs is a first-rate economist. In my view, he is not a first-rate historian. For instance, in his Preface, he calls Kennedy a Cold Warrior when he entered office. As this reviewer has stated previously, this is simply not the case. In relation to Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon, Kennedy was not a Cold Warrior in 1961. Using a multiplicity of sources, this issue has been dealt with by this reviewer in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. (See pages 17-33) When Kennedy entered office in 1961 he was already a complex and sophisticated thinker on foreign policy. And he did not see the world’s problems through the lens of anti-communism. And he criticized those who did, e.g. Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. This is why JFK reversed the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in more than one place in 1961, for example, in Congo and Laos. If he had really been a Cold Warrior, he would have kept those policies in place.

    In Chapter 1, Sachs tries to briefly sketch in the problems Kennedy had in office in 1961. Therefore, he naturally discusses the Bay of Pigs invasion. And here, this reviewer has another disagreement with the author. In writing on the Bay of Pigs, he calls the operation naive, and incompetently designed and managed. The most recent scholarship and declassified records on this issue would seem to paint a different picture. As Jim Douglass wrote in his book, using an important essay from the academic journal Diplomatic History, CIA Director Allen Dulles never really expected the operation to succeed. What he was banking on was that Kennedy really was a Cold Warrior and he would send in the Navy when he saw the operation was going to fail. (Douglass, p. 14)

    Sachs also writes in Chapter 1 that Kennedy denied the Cuban exiles air support during the first day of the invasion. As the declassified record now makes clear, this is a myth. It was created by Dulles and Howard Hunt during the White House Taylor Commission hearings on the Bay of Pigs. Hunt ghostwrote an article for reporter Charles Murphy of Fortune Magazine. That article tried to switch the blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs from the CIA to Kennedy. Hunt and Dulles therefore created this story about the canceled D-Day air strikes. The problem is that Kennedy never approved these D-Day strikes to be launched until a sufficient beachhead bad been secured on Cuba. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 46) Since no such beachhead was ever achieved, the strikes did not go forward. But, as Lyman Kirkpatrick wrote in the CIA’s Inspector General Report, these would not have made any difference anyway. Because Castro had brought too much heavy artillery, tanks and troops to the front within 10 hours. The exiles were greatly outnumbered and outgunned before the first day was over. (pgs. 40-41)

    Further, Sachs notes an exchange between Kennedy and Eisenhower on whether or not this capitulation should have happened. He quotes Eisenhower as saying that Kennedy’s attempt to keep American forces out was wrong headed because the world was going to know that the Cubans could not have launched such an amphibious assault on their own anyway. So America had to be involved. This shows a lack of understanding of Kennedy’s version of the Truman Doctrine. Kennedy differentiated between aiding and abetting forces resisting communism, and the United States actually directly involving itself in a conflict through the insertion of American combat troops. This is something Kennedy resisted for his entire term of office. On the other hand, Eisenhower committed troops into Lebanon, Johnson into the Dominican Republican and Vietnam, and Nixon into Cambodia. Therefore, Kennedy was not a classic Cold Warrior.

    But to further try and portray Kennedy as something he was not in 1961, Sachs also notes that Jupiter missiles were inserted into Turkey at that time. This is accurate. But this deployment had been agreed upon in 1959 under Eisenhower. Kennedy was only implementing a predetermined agreement. And Kennedy had actually wanted the Jupiters removed almost immediately and replaced with Polaris undersea missiles which would not be so open to a first strike. (Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days, p. 807)

    II

    In Chapter 2, Sachs shifts to the Vienna summit and the dispute over West Berlin. He notes that Kennedy had decided in advance not to give atomic weapons to Konrad Adenauer and West Germany. He traces the subsequent Berlin Crisis and the construction of the Berlin Wall in August of 1961. Sachs adds that the stemming of the flow of refugees from East Berlin to West Berlin by the construction of the wall did much to lessen the tension over the refugee issue. So, in an ironic way, the construction of the wall actually helped solve a practical problem as it created a large, dark symbol of the Cold War.

    Afterwards, Kennedy told O’Donnell that he thought the whole crisis was overblown. To risk so many lives over access rights on the autobahn was simply ridiculous.

    As a result of the crisis, Russia now announced it was resuming nuclear testing. And on October 30, 1961, the Tsar Bomba test explosion took place at the Novaya Zemyla archipelago. This hydrogen bomb device had a yield of 55 megatons. To this day, it is the largest nuclear explosion ever recorded. It had ten times the power of all the bombs ever dropped during World War II. Sachs writes that, to Kennedy, this resumption of testing was the greatest disappointment in his first year in office. As a reaction, the president had Asst. Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric spell out America’s distinct advantage in nuclear weaponry. Sachs now says that this was a precipitating cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Again, this reviewer cannot recall interpretation noted elsewhere. In The Kennedy Tapes, which is probably the best volume on the subject, this is never even mentioned as a cause of the crisis.

    From here, Sachs begins to chronicle the Missile Crisis. Again, he says something questionable. He writes that Kennedy favored an air strike at the beginning of the Ex Comm meetings. In the strictest sense, this may be true. But by questioning what would happen as a result of stray bombs during an air strike, Kennedy then searched for another option. He was not willing to risk thousands of dead civilians over a superpower conflict. One in which these civilians would be innocent bystanders.

    Sachs then proceeds to the conclusion of the crisis. The exchange included the Russians removing their atomic weapons on the island for a public pledge by Kennedy not to invade Cuba, combined with a secret agreement to remove the obsolete Jupiters in Turkey.

    The author sees this conclusion to the Missile Crisis as the prelude to both Kennedy and Khrushchev now seeking a way to deter the threat of nuclear Armageddon in the future. For instance, in an exchange of letters, the Russian leader told the American president that he appreciated the restraint he had shown during the crisis.

    And this is how the author essentially sums up the first two years of Kennedy’s foreign policy forays. When I read this summary I wrote in my notes, “Sachs leaves out Congo, Indonesia, India, Ghana, all of Africa, Nasser, Sadat, Iran and several others.” And it is this lack which allows him to write that JFK was now a changed man in 1962. If, for instance, Sachs had reviewed the Congo policy, he would have seen that Kennedy was really not a changed man at the end of 1962. He entered office with revolutionary ideas about American foreign policy and the Cold War, especially in the Third World. And he enacted those ideas almost immediately. What delayed any rapprochement with the USSR was the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Which many felt impacted the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev was determined not to lose his outpost in the Caribbean, which the Russian could use as leverage in Germany. Therefore, he misjudged Kennedy’s restraint during the Bay of Pigs and moved the nuclear triad into Cuba. If Kennedy had not been mislead about the Bay of Pigs, it is an open question that he would have gotten off to such a slow start with his rapprochement to Russia.

    III

    In Chapter 3, Sachs gets to the heart of his volume. And this is the section of the book that is the most valuable. Here the author begins to outline what he thinks were Kennedy’s goals in office concerning the Soviet Union in 1963 and how he thought they could be achieved.

    Number one on this list is arms control. After the fearsome explosion of Tsar Bomba, Kennedy was determined that the arms race be brought back under control. But Sachs notes that he was also worried about how atomic warfare could be kicked off by mistake. Kennedy was always reading. And one of his favorite books was Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August. This was a microstudy of the military decisions that led up to the start of World War I. It was published in 1962 and became an immediate bestseller through most of 1963. In it, Tuchman pointed out all the miscalculations made by leaders on both sides that resulted in the tragedy of trench warfare and the astronomical casualties consumed on the Western Front. Kennedy was so impressed by the book he gave copies to his cabinet and military advisors.

    Sachs also says that by 1963 Kennedy understood that peace with the USSR was going to be a process, a series of understandings taken step by step. He also knew that it had to be achieved by recognizing what the interests of the other side were, and where there was a mutuality of interests to share and cooperate upon. Therefore, another value was that the president knew he had to be a good listener. And that he should also utilize go-betweens, which he did with Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins. Cousins served as a courier of messages between Kennedy, Krushchev and Pope John XXIII. (This extraordinary circle is captured by Cousins in his book, The Improbable Triumvirate.)

    As Sachs notes, Kennedy told Cousins that both he and Khrushchev were partly imprisoned by the militant right-wingers within their governments. And these two groups, whether they realized it or not, aided each other. Kennedy tried to assure Khrushchev, who was worried about atomic war over Germany, by not giving nuclear weapons to West Germany. And according to Sachs, this decision hurt the militant Adenauer and led to the ascension of the more reasonable Ludwig Erhard in late 1963.

    Finally, Sachs writes that Kennedy understood that only strong and vigorous leadership could work toward peace. Or as he puts it, “only active presidential leadership would overcome the doubts, fears, and provocations of the military and hardliners and the public.” Sachs then continues with, “Both Kennedy and Khrushchev gave ground to each other to enable his counterpart to force down his own domestic skeptics and critics.” (He could have added here, that Castro offered to do the same with Lyndon Johnson in order to keep up Kennedy’s attempt at détente.)

    In Chapter 4, Sachs talks about speeches that he thinks may have influenced Kennedy in his American University address. I almost fell off my chair when he mentioned Winston Churchill’s 1946 Iron Curtain speech. This was made at the invitation of President Truman in Fulton, Missouri. Sachs tries to disguise this declaration by calling it the “Sinews of Peace” speech. But clearly, when read as a whole, Churchill was calling out the Russians for their domination of Eastern Europe, even though, this had been largely been arranged in advance by the infamous Percentages Agreement between Stalin and Churchill in 1944. A call for a new Cold War is clearly how Stalin viewed the speech.

    Sachs is on a bit stronger ground when he mentions two speeches by President Eisenhower. These were both delivered in 1953. One was called the “Chance for Peace” speech and the other was the “Atoms for Peace” speech. The first was made in April of 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors and broadcast on TV and radio. It was made in the wake of Stalin’s death and called for a winding down of the Cold War, saying that the money spent of weapons, could help each side to build things like schools and power plants. The second speech was made before the UN at the end of 1953. In it Eisenhower called for peaceful uses for atomic energy and a non-proliferation of warheads. There has been a debate about the reasons for the speech. Some have said that Eisenhower was really just trying to soften the image of nuclear energy being only a destructive force.

    The last speech Sachs names is the famous Eisenhower Farewell Address. Most of us are familiar with this speech because Oliver Stone used it as the prelude to his film JFK. It is indeed quite a memorable speech. Yet Sachs does not make the irony as clear as he should: If Eisenhower was really serious about the first two speeches, then why did he have to make the ominous warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in the last speech?

    In point of fact, none of these speeches goes as far as Kennedy’s did in forging a new vision of understanding based on mutual interests as the America University speech. That speech, excerpted by Sachs here and Jim Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable, was probably the first by an American president to actually try and recognize the USSR as something less than a permanent opponent, as something like a necessary partner, and as such, a nation that the USA needed to understand in order to cooperate with. As Sachs says in Chapter 5, Kennedy really tried to humanize the Soviet Union and its citizenry. And as Douglass noted, the reaction to the speech in the USSR was more congratulatory than the one in the USA.

    From here, Sachs goes on to trace the push by Kennedy for the Limited Test Ban Treaty. As Thurston Clarke had noted, the president made this a very high priority. And he literally covered all the bases in advance to make sure the treaty would pass. Which it did in a resounding vote of 80-19. And about 90 other countries signed onto the treaty. But Kennedy could not get a comprehensive ban through. For the reason that he and the USSR could not agree on the number of on-site inspections per year. Evidently, the Russians thought that too many inspections would allow for American spying. Therefore, underground testing was allowed to proceed.

    But as Sachs notes, Kennedy’s technical advisers on the treaty, like Adrian Fisher, said that they felt that Kennedy saw this as just a beginning. It was just a first step in a disarmament program. Sachs also notes that after the treaty passed, Kennedy continued in his attempt at détente with the USSR. The author mentions things like cultural exchanges, the installation of the hotline for crisis management, the large sale of wheat to Russia and Kennedy’s proposal for cooperation with Russia on a project to get to the moon.

    When Kennedy was murdered, Nikita Khrushchev was overwhelmed with grief. He wrote President Johnson a moving letter saying that Kennedy’s death not just a blow to America by a loss for the whole world, including the Soviet Union. And as Sachs notes, after Kennedy’s death, Khrushchev was deposed the following year.

    Sachs closes the book with the insight that, if Kennedy lived, the nuclear arsenals would not have grown to the astronomical heights they later did. And it would not have taken as long to draw them down to a more reasonable number. He also notes that Kennedy was very interested in non-proliferation, that is that other countries not gain nuclear arsenals either. Kennedy’s vision did not come to pass in any way near the form he wanted. The USSR went on a nuclear building binge that eventually passed the size of the American arsenal. At one time, the Soviets had over 40,000 warheads. In fact, in 1974, Henry Kissinger observed, “One of the questions we have to ask …is what is the name of God is strategic superiority? What is the significance of it politically, militarily, operationally at these levels of numbers? What do you do with it?”

    It was probably that comment that got Kissinger neutralized by the hawks in the Ford administration, namely Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Which was the true beginning of the neoconservative movement. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted the USA to maintain whatever “superiority” they could. Thus began the whole Committee on the Present Danger campaign led by people like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Paul Nitze, to drum up support for the growing mythology of Soviet military superiority. (That whole aspect, which Sachs ignores, is well described by Jerry Sanders in Peddlers of Crisis.) Therefore, it was not really until 1991 and START I that a serious step toward arms control and the lowering of numbers was actually taken. But yet, by the nineties, Kennedy’s other goal, non-proliferation, was violated since 6 other countries now had nuclear weapons. Including Israel, which Kennedy was very much opposed to.

    Causes of the Cuban Missile Crisis

    In October 1962, a U-2 American spy plane covertly took pictures of the nuclear missile sites that the Soviet Union was building on the island of Cuba. However, President Kennedy didn’t want Cuba and the Soviet Union to know that he had found the missiles. He arranged a secret meeting with his advisors for a number of days to talk about the issue. There are plenty of causes of the missile crisis in Cuba (also known as the Fidel Castro Cuban missile crisis) including America’s naval blockade, the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the arms race, the Bay of Pigs Disaster, and the Cuban Revolution.

  • On its 50th Anniversary: Why the Warren Report Today is Inoperative, In Five “Plaques”


    Introduction to the Series

    In late September and October of this year, the nation will observe the 50th anniversary of the issuance of, respectively, the Warren Report and its accompanying 26 volumes of evidence. There are certain forms of commemoration already in the works. For instance, there is a book upcoming by inveterate Warren Report apologists Mel Ayton and David Von Pein. And undoubtedly, with the MSM in complete obeisance to the Warren Report, Commission attorney Howard Willens will undoubtedly be in the spotlight again.

    At CTKA, since we report on the latest developments in the case, and are very interested in the discoveries of the Assassination Records Review Board, we have a much more realistic and frank view of the Warren Report. In the light of the discoveries made on the case today, the Warren Report is simply untenable. In just about every aspect. About the only fact it got right is that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Headquarters. The Commission could not miss that since it was captured live on television. But, as we shall see, it got just about everything else related to that shooting wrong.

    Today, to anyone who knows the current state of the evidence in the JFK case, the Warren Report stands as a paradigm of how not to conduct either a high profile murder investigation, or any kind of posthumous fact finding inquiry. In fact, just about every attorney who has looked at the Kennedy case since 1964 in any official capacity has had nothing but unkind words about it. This includes Jim Garrison, Gary Hart and Dave Marston of the Church Committee, the first attorneys of record for the HSCA, Richard Sprague and Robert Tanenbaum, as well as the second pair, Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell, and finally, Jeremy Gunn, the chief counsel of the ARRB. This is a crucial point-among many others– that the MSM ignored during its (disgraceful) commemoration of the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination.

    On the other hand, CTKA’s role is one of recording fact oriented history and criticism about President Kennedy’s murder. Therefore, we wish to assemble a list of reasons why, today, the Warren Report and its verdict has the forensic impact of a pillow slap.

    In spite of that, we predict, come September, the MSM will carry virtually none of what is to follow. Even though everything you are about to read is factually supported and crucial as to why the Warren Report is so fatally flawed. The fact you will hear very little of the following, or perhaps none of it, tells you how dangerously schizoid America and the MSM is on the subject of the murder of President Kennedy. It also might give us a clue as to why the country has not been the same since.

    The following starts a continuing series which will be added to on a regular basis until late October of this year. The series will be arranged in plaques or sets. These are composed of separate, specific points which are thematically related and will be briefly summarized after all the points in a plaque are enumerated. This first set deals with the formation of the Warren Commission. And we show just how hopelessly compromised that body was from the instant it was created. We strongly urge our readers to try and get the their local MSM outlets to cover some of these very important facts that are in evidence today, but, for the most part, were not known to the public back in 1964.

    [For convenience, we have embedded the five originally separate articles into this single article.  – Webmaster]


     

    PLAQUE ONE: Hopelessly stilted at the start.

    Posted June 20, 2014

    1. Earl Warren never wanted to head the Commission and had to be blackmailed into taking the job.

    Due to the declassified records made available by the ARRB, we now know that Chief Justice Earl Warren initially declined to helm the Commission. After he did so, President Johnson summoned him to the White House. Once there, LBJ confronted him with what he said was evidence that Oswald had visited both the Cuban and Russian consulates in Mexico City. Johnson then intimated that Oswald’s previous presence there, seven weeks before the assassination, could very well indicate the communists were behind Kennedy’s murder. Therefore, this could necessitate atomic holocaust, World War III. Both Johnson and Warren later reported that this warning visibly moved the Chief Justice and he left the meeting in tears. (See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pgs. 80-83; James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 358-59)

    2. Clearly intimidated by his meeting with Johnson, Earl Warren had no desire to run any kind of real investigation.

    Due to the declassification process of the ARRB, we now have all the executive session hearings of the Commission. Because of that, we know how effective Johnson’s chilling warning to Earl Warren was. At the first meeting of the Commission, Warren made it clear that he 1.) Did not want the Commission to employs its own investigators. 2.) They were just to evaluate materials produced by the FBI and Secret Service. 3.) He did not want to hold public hearings or use the power of subpoena. 4.) He even intimated that he did not even want to call any witnesses. He thought the Commission could rely on interviews done by other agencies. He actually said the following: “Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.”

    As the reader can see, Johnson’s atomic warning had cowed the former DA of Alameda county California, Earl Warren. He had no desire to run a real investigation.

    3. Warren communicated Johnson’s warning about the threat of atomic warfare to his staff at their first meeting.

    At the Commission’s first staff meeting, attorney Melvin Eisenberg took notes of how Warren briefed the young lawyers on the task ahead, i.e. trying to find out who killed President Kennedy. Warren told them about his reluctance to take the job. He then told them that LBJ “stated that rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government” that wanted to install LBJ as president. These rumors, “if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives.” (Emphasis added, Memorandum of Eisenberg 1/20/64)

    Warren then added “No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles.” (Emphasis added) In discussing the role of the Commission, Warren asserted the “importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln.” Warren then added this, “He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be.”

    It is those 14 words that Commission staffers, like the late David Belin, would dutifully quote for The New York Times. We now know that, by leaving out the previous 166 words, Belin was distorting the message. Any group of bright young lawyers would understand that Warren was sending down orders from the White House. The last 14 words were simply technical cover for all that had come before. When Warren said, “this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles”, he could not be more clear. In fact, that phrase is so telling that, in his discussion of the memo, Vincent Bugliosi leaves it out of his massive book Reclaiming History. (See Bugliosi, p. 367, and Reclaiming Parkland by James DiEugenio, pgs. 253-54)

    But there is further certification that the staffers got the message and acted on it. For in her first interview with the Church Committee, Sylvia Odio talked about her meeting with Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler. After taking her testimony in Dallas, he told Odio, “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.” (Odio’s Church Committee interview with Gaeton Fonzi, of 1/16/76)

    4. Hoover closed the case on November 24th, the day Ruby Killed Oswald.

    On that day, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called Walter Jenkins at the White House. He said that he had spoken with assistant Attorney General Nicolas Katzenbach already, and that they both were anxious to have “something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.” (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 4)

    It was on this day that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby live on television. How could Hoover have completed an investigation of that particular murder on the day it happened? To do such an inquiry, Ruby’s entire background would have to be checked, all the people he dealt with and spoke to in the preceding weeks would have to be located and spoken to, the Dallas Police force would have to be interviewed to see if he had help entering the City Hall basement, and all films, photos and audio would have to be reviewed for evidentiary purposes. This point would be crucial: if Ruby was recruited, this would indicate a conspiracy to silence Oswald. That whole investigation was done in less than a day?

    Nope. And, in fact, not only was the murder of Oswald not fully investigated at the time Hoover closed the case, but just 24 hours earlier, Hoover had told President Johnson that the case against Oswald for the JFK murder was not very good. (ibid) This all indicates that Hoover was making a political choice, not an investigatory one. It suggests everything the Bureau did from this point on would be to fulfill that (premature) decision. Which leads us to the next point.

    5. The FBI inquiry was so unsatisfactory, even the Warren Commission discounted it.

    In fact, you will not find the FBI report in the Commission’s evidentiary volumes. Even though the Commission relied on the Bureau for approximately 80% of its investigation. (Warren Report, p. xii) Why? First, Hoover never bought the Single Bullet Theory. That is, the idea that one bullet went through both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, making seven wounds, smashing two bones, and emerging almost unscathed. The Warren Commission did end up buying into this idea, which later caused it so many problems.

    But second, the FBI report sent to the Commission was inadequate even for the Commissioners. We know this from the declassified Executive Session transcript of January 22, 1964. The Commissioners were shocked about two things. First, the FBI is not supposed to come to conclusions. They are supposed to investigate and present findings for others to form conclusions. But in this case, they said Oswald killed Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit without accomplices. That Ruby killed Oswald with no accomplices or aid. And the two didn’t know each other. In other words, this report was a fulfillment of Hoover’s message to Walter Jenkins of November 24th. (See Point 4) The Commissioners, who were lawyers, saw that the FBI had not run out anywhere near all the leads available to them. As Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin exclaimed, “But they are concluding that there can’t be a conspiracy without those being run out. Now that is not my experience with the FBI.” (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 219)

    In other words, in his zeal to close the case, Hoover broke with established FBI practice not once, but twice. In sum, the FBI report was so poor, the Commission decided it had to call witnesses and use subpoena power.

    6. Hoover knew the CIA was lying about Oswald and Mexico City. He also knew his report was a sham.

    President Johnson relied on the CIA for his information about Oswald in Mexico City. As we saw in Point 1, he used it to intimidate Warren. As we saw in Points 2 and 3, Warren then communicated this fear to the Commission and his staff.

    But what if that information was, for whatever reason, either wrong, or intentionally false? Would that not put a different interpretation on the information, its source, and Johnson’s message to Warren?

    Within seven weeks of the murder, Hoover understood that such was the case. Writing in the marginalia of a memo concerning CIA operations within the USA, he wrote about the Agency, “I can’t forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealings.” (The Assassinations, p. 224, emphasis added) In a phone call to Johnson, Hoover revealed that the voice on the Mexico City tape sent to him by the Agency was not Oswald’s, “In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.” (ibid) Needless to say, if Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico, this transforms the whole import of Johnson’s original message to Warren.

    Knowing this, Hoover went along with what he knew was a cover-up. And he admitted this in private on at least two occasions. He told a friend, after the initial FBI report was submitted, that the case was a mess, and he had just a bunch of loose ends. In the late summer of 1964, he was asked by a close acquaintance about it. Hoover replied, “If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our political system would be disrupted.” (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 222)

    7. Nicolas Katzenbach cooperated with Hoover to close the case almost immediately.

    As we saw in Point 4, on November 24th, Hoover had closed the case. But he had also talked to Acting Attorney General Nicolas Katzenbach that day about getting something out to convince the public Oswald was the sole killer. As we saw, Hoover did this with his makeshift FBI report.

    Katzenbach also did this with the famous Katzenbach Memorandum. (Which can be read here.) As one can see, there is evidence that Hoover actually drafted the memo for Katzenbach. It says that the public must be satisfied Oswald was the lone killer and he had no confederates still at large. It does not say Oswald was the lone killer. After all, Ruby had just killed him the day before. How could there be any conclusions reached about the matter in 24 hours? Katzenbach wants to rely on an FBI report to convince the public Knowing that the previous day Hoover had told him he was closing the case already. This memo was sent to the White House, and Katzenbach would later become the Justice Department liaison with the Commission. In fact, he attended their first meeting and encouraged them to accept the FBI report. Which they did not. (Executive Session transcript of 12/5/63)

    8. Howard Willens actually thought the CIA was honest with the Warren Commission.

    As the Commission liaison, Katzenbach appointed Justice Department lawyer Howard Willens to recruit assistant counsel to man the Commission. Willens then stayed with the Commission throughout as an administrator and Katzenbach’s eyes and ears there.

    In his journal, on March 12, 1964, Willens wrote the following: “I consider the CIA representatives to be among the more competent people in government who I have ever dealt with. They articulate, they are specialists, and they seem to have a broad view of government. This may be, of course because they do not have a special axes (sic) to grind in the Commission’s investigation.”

    Recall, former Director Allen Dulles sat on the Commission for ten months. He never revealed the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Richard Helms also was in direct communication with the Commission. He did not reveal the existence of the plots either.

    CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton was designated by Helms to be the point person with the Commission on Oswald. Tipped off by Dulles, he rehearsed with the FBI to tell the same story about Oswald’s lack of affiliation with both agencies. (Peter Grose, Gentleman Spy, pgs. 547-48) Today, of course, many informed observers believe that Oswald was an agent provocateur for the CIA and an informant for the FBI. There is ample evidence for both. (See Destiny Betrayed, Chapters 7 and 8, and John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA.) But you will not find any of it in the Warren Report.

    9. When senior lawyers started leaving, Howard Willens hired law school graduates to finish the job.

    As noted in Point 8, Howard Willens hired most of the counselors for the Commission. Surprisingly, many of these lawyers were not criminal attorneys. They had a business background or education e.g. David Belin, Melvin Eisenberg, Wesley Liebeler. But beyond that, by the summer of 1964, many of the senior counselors started to leave. Mainly because they were losing money being away from private practice. To replace them, Willens did a rather odd thing. He began to hire newly minted law school graduates. In other words, lawyers who had no experience in any kind of practice at all. In fact, one of these men, Murray Lauchlicht, had not even graduated from law school when Willens enlisted him. (Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act, p. 404) His field of specialty was trusts and estates. When he got to the Commissions offices, Lauchlicht was assigned to complete the biography of Jack Ruby. Another recent law school graduate who had clerked for one year was Lloyd Weinreb. The 24 year old Weinreb was given the job of completing the biography of Oswald. (ibid, p. 405)

    Needless to say, these two aspects of the report, the biographies of Oswald and Ruby have come to be suspect since they leave so much pertinent material out. In fact, Burt Griffin told the House Select Committee on Assassinations, senior counsel Leon Hubert left because he did not feel he was getting any support from the Commission administrators, or the intelligence agencies, to understand who Ruby really was. (HSCA, Volume XI, pgs. 268-83) Obviously, someone who had not even graduated law school would not have those kinds of compunctions. Willens probably knew that.

    10. The two most active members of the Commission were Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford.

    As we have seen from Points 1-3, from the moment that Johnson conjured up the vision of 40 million dead through atomic warfare, Earl Warren was largely marginalized as an investigator. He was further marginalized when he tried to appoint his own Chief Counsel, Warren Olney. He was outmaneuvered by a combination of Hoover, Dulles, Gerald Ford and John McCloy. Not only did they manage to jettison Olney, they installed their own choice, J. Lee Rankin. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, pgs.41-45)

    Within this milieu, with no effective leadership, the two most active and dominant commissioners turned out to be Dulles and Ford. (Walt Brown, The Warren Omission, pgs. 83-85) Which is just about the worst thing that could have happened. As we have seen, Dulles was, to be kind, less than forthcoming about both Oswald, and the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. As has been revealed through declassified records, Ford was, from almost the outset, a Commission informant for the FBI. (Breach of Trust, pgs. 42-44)

    Later on, in the editing of the final report, Ford did something unconscionable, but quite revealing. In the first draft, the report said that the first wound to Kennedy hit him in the back. Which is accurate. Ford changed this to the bullet hit Kennedy in the neck. (ibid, p. 174) Which reveals that he understood that the public would have a hard time accepting the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory. When the HSCA made public some of the autopsy photos, it was revealed the bullet did hit Kennedy in the back. Lawyers, like Vincent Bugliosi, call an act like that “consciousness of guilt”.

    11. The Warren Report only achieved a unanimous vote through treachery i.e. tricking its own members.

    One of the best kept secrets of the Commission was that all of its members were not on board with the Single Bullet Theory. In fact, as we know today, there was at least one member who was not ready to sign off on the report unless certain objections were in the record. The man who made these objections was Sen. Richard Russell. Sen. John S. Cooper and Rep. Hale Boggs quietly supported him behind the scenes. These three not only had problems with ballistics evidence, they also questioned the FBI version of just who Lee and Marina Oswald actually were. Russell was so disenchanted with the proceedings that he actually wrote a letter of resignation-which he did not send-and he commissioned his own private inquiry. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 258)

    Realizing that Russell was going to demand certain objections be entered into the record at the final meeting, Rankin and Warren did something extraordinarily deceitful. They stage-managed a presentation that featured a female secretary there; but she was not from the official stenography company, Ward and Paul. (McKnight, p. 294) She was, in essence, an actress. Therefore, there is no actual transcript of this meeting where Russell voiced his reservations.

    This fact was kept from Russell until 1968. Then researcher Harold Weisberg discovered it. When he alerted Russell to this internal trickery, the senator became the first commissioner to openly break ranks with his cohorts and question what they had done. (ibid, pgs. 296-97) Russell was later joined by Boggs and Cooper. Hale Boggs was quite vocal about the cover-up instituted by Hoover. He said that “Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission.” (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 259)

    12. In its design and intent, the Commission was a travesty of legal procedure, judicial fairness and objectivity.

    One of the boldest lies in the Warren Report appears in the Foreword. There, the Commission declares that although it has not been a courtroom procedure, neither has it proceeded “as a prosecutor determined to prove a case.” (p. xiv) No one who has read the report and compared it with the 26 volumes believes this. For the simple reason that, as many critics pointed out, the evidence in the volumes is carefully picked to support the concept of Oswald’s guilt and Ruby acting alone. Sylvia’s Meagher’s masterful Accessories After the Fact, makes this point in almost every chapter. The Commission ignored evidence in its own volumes, or to which it had access, which contradicted its own predetermined prosecutorial conclusions.

    A good example, previously mentioned, would be what Gerald Ford did with the back wound. (See Point 10) Another would be the fact that in the entire report–although the Zapruder film is mentioned at times–there is no description of the rapid, rearward movement of Kennedy’s entire body as he is hit at Zapruder frame 313.

    Although it was helmed by a Chief Justice who had fought for the rights of the accused, the Commission reversed judicial procedure: Oswald was guilty before the first witness was called. We know this from the outline prepared by Chief Counsel Rankin. On a progress report submitted January 11, 1964, the second subhead reads, “Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy.” The second reads, “Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives.” (Reclaiming Parkland pgs. 250-51) This was three weeks before the hearings began! Clearly, the Commission was arranged at this time as an adversary to Oswald. But there was no defense granted to the defendant. None at all.

    This is a point that the Commission again misrepresents in its Foreword. They write that they requested Walter Craig, president of the ABA, to advise whether or not they were abiding by the basic principles of American justice. And he attended hearings and was free to express himself at all times. As Meagher pointed out, this arrangement lasted only from February 27th to March 12th. And not once did Craig make an objection in Oswald’s defense. (Meagher, p. xxix) After this, Craig and his assistants did not participate directly. They only made suggestions. Further, neither Craig nor his assistants were at any of the hearings of the 395 witnesses who did not appear before the Commission, but were deposed by Warren Commission counsel.

    As more than one writer has noted, the Nazis at Nuremburg were provided more of a defense than Oswald. This fact alone makes the Warren Report a dubious enterprise.

    13. As a fact finding body, the Commission was completely unsatisfactory.

    For two reasons. First, usually, as with congressional hearings, when such a body is assembled, there is a majority and minority counsel to balance out two points of view. That did not happen here. And it was never seriously contemplated. Therefore, as we saw with Russell in Point 11, there was no check on the majority.

    Second, a fact finding commission is supposed to find all the facts, or at least a good portion of them. If they do not, then their findings are greatly reduced in validity in direct proportion to what is missing from the record.

    To cite what is missing from the Warren Report would take almost another 26 volumes of evidence. But in very important fields, like the medical evidence and autopsy procedures, like Oswald’s associations with American intelligence, as with Ruby’s ties to the Dallas Police and to organized crime, in all these areas, and many more, what the Warren Report left out is more important than what it printed. In fact, there have been entire books written about these subjects-respectively, William Law’s In the Eye of History, John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, Seth Kantor’s Who was Jack Ruby?-that completely alter the depiction of the portraits drawn of those subjects in the report. And when we get to other specific subjects, like Oswald in New Orleans, or the Clinton/Jackson incident, Mexico City, or the killing of Oswald by Ruby, the Warren Report today is completely and utterly bereft of facts. Therefore, its conclusions are rudderless since they have no reliable scaffolding.

    Conclusion from Plaque One: The Warren Commission was hopelessly biased against Oswald from its inception. Actually before its inception, as we have seen with he cases of Warren, Hoover and Katzenbach. And since each of those men had an integral role to play in the formation and direction of the Commission, the enterprise was doomed from the start. As a criminal investigation, as a prosecutor’s case, and as a fact finding inquiry. The Commission, in all regards, was like the Leaning Tower of Pisa: structurally unsound at its base. Therefore, all of its main tenets, as we shall see, were destined to be specious.


     

    PLAQUE TWO: The Worst Prosecutorial Misconduct Possible

    Posted July 23, 2014.

    Introduction

    As we have seen in Plaque 1, since there was no internal check on it, and no rules of evidence in play, the Warren Commission was essentially a prosecution run amok. And when a prosecutor knows he can do just about anything he wants, he will fiddle with the evidence. We will now list several examples where the Commission altered, discounted, or failed to present important exculpatory evidence in the case against Oswald.

    14. Arlen Specter buried the testimony of FBI agents Jim Sibert and Frank O’Neill.

    Commission counsel Specter had a difficult job. He had to camouflage the medical evidence in the JFK case to minimize the indications of a conspiracy. Sibert and O’Neill were two FBI agents assigned by Hoover to compile a report on Kennedy’s autopsy. Their report and observations would have created insurmountable problems for Specter. Among other things, they maintained that the back wound was actually in the back and not the neck, that this wound did not transit the body, and it entered at a 45-degree angle, which would make it impossible to exit the throat. Years later, when shown the back of the head photos of President Kennedy – which depict no hole, neatly combed hair, and an intact scalp – they both said this was not at all what they recalled. For example, O’Neill and Sibert both recalled a large gaping wound in the back of the skull. Which clearly suggests a shot from the front. (William Matson Law, In the Eye of History, pgs. 168, 245) Neither man was called as a witness, and their report is not in the 26 volumes of evidence appended to the Warren Report. Specter told Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin that Sibert made no contemporaneous notes and O’Neill destroyed his. These are both false. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 121) But they allowed a cover for prosecutor Specter to dispense with evidence that would have vitiated both the Single Bullet Theory and the idea that all shots came from the back.

    15. Arlen Specter never interviewed Admiral George Burkley or produced his death certificate.

    Burkley was an important witness. Not just because he was the president’s personal physician. But because he was the one doctor who was present at both Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Medical Center. (See Roger Feinman’s online book, The Signal and the Noise, Chapter 8.) As Feinman details, Burkley was in the room before Malcolm Perry made his incision for a tracheotomy. Therefore, he likely saw the throat wound before it was slit. But further, on his death certificate, he placed the back wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra, which would appear to make the trajectory through the throat – and the Single Bullet Theory – quite improbable. (ibid) He also signed the autopsy descriptive sheet as “verified”. This also placed the back wound low (click here). The third thoracic vertebra is about 4-6 inches below the point at which the shoulders meet the neck. As we saw in Plaque One, Gerald Ford revised a draft of the Warren Report to read that the bullet went through the neck, not the back. Burkley’s death certificate would have seriously undermined Ford’s revision.

    How troublesome of a witness could Burkley have been? In 1977, his attorney contacted Richard Sprague, then Chief Counsel of the HSCA. Sprague’s March 18th memo reads that Burkley “. . . had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating others besides Oswald must have participated.” Later, author Henry Hurt wrote that “. . . in 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.” (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt , p. 49)

    16. The Warren Report distorted the November 22nd impromptu press conference of Dallas doctors Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry.

    This press conference was particularly troublesome for the official story. Among other things, Dr. Malcolm Perry said three times that the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound. This would indicate a shot from the front, and therefore a second assassin. Therefore, on page 90 of the Warren Report, a description of Perry’s comments appears which is simply not honest. The report says that Perry answered a series of hypotheticals, he explained how a variety of possibilities could account for JFK’s wounds, and he demonstrated how a single bullet could have caused all of the wounds in the president. This is, at best, an exaggeration.

    On the next page, quoting a newspaper account, the report states that Perry said it was “possible” the neck wound was one of entrance. Perry never said this. And the fact that the report quotes a newspaper account and not the transcript gives the game away. Clearly, the report is trying to negate Perry’s same day evidence of his work on the throat wound, since he had the best view of this wound (click here). In modern parlance, this is called after-the-fact damage control. Attorneys searching for the truth in a murder case should not be participating in such an exercise.

    17. In the entire Warren Report, one will not encounter the name of O. P. Wright.

    Considering the fact that the report is over 800 pages long, this is amazing. Why? Because most people consider Commission Exhibit (CE) 399 one of the most important – if not the most important – piece of evidence in the case. Wright was the man who handed this exhibit over to the Secret Service. This should have made him a key witness in the chain of possession of this bullet. Especially since CE 399 is the fulcrum of the Warren Report. Sometimes called the Magic Bullet, Specter said this projectile went through both Kennedy and Governor Connally making seven wounds and smashing two bones. Without this remarkable bullet path, and without this nearly intact bullet, the wounds necessitate too many bullets to accommodate Specter’s case. In other words, there was a second assassin. So Specter did all he could to try and make the wild ride of CE 399 credible.

    This included eliminating Wright from the report. Why? Because Wright maintained that he did not turn over CE 399 to the Secret Service that day. While describing what he did to author Josiah Thompson, Thompson held up a photo of CE 399 for Wright to inspect. Wright immediately responded that this was not the bullet he gave to the Secret Service. CE 399 is a copper-coated, round-nosed, military jacketed projectile. Wright said that he gave the Secret Service a lead-colored, sharp-nosed, hunting round. (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175)

    Needless to say, with that testimony, in any kind of true legal proceeding, the defense would have moved for a mistrial.

    18. The drawings of Kennedy’s wounds depicted in the Warren Commission are fictional.

    After the Warren Commission was formed, pathologists James Humes and Thornton Boswell met with Specter about 8-10 times. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 119) Specter then arranged a meeting between a young medical artist, Harold Rydberg, and the two pathologists. To this day, Rydberg does not understand why he was chosen to do the medical illustrations for the Warren Commission. (Law, In the Eye of History, p. 293) He had only been studying for about a year. There were vastly more experienced artists available in the area.

    But further, when Humes and Boswell showed up, they had nothing with them: no pictures, no X-rays, no official measurements. Therefore, they verbally told Rydberg about Kennedy’s wounds from memory. Rydberg later deduced that this was done so that no paper trail existed. For the drawings are not done in accordance with the evidence. First, presaging Gerald Ford, the wound in Kennedy’s back is moved up into his neck. Then a slightly downward, straight-line flight path links this fictional neck placement with the throat wound. (See WC, Vol. 16, CE 385, 388)

    The head wound is also wrong. Humes and Boswell placed Kennedy’s head in a much more anteflexed position than the Zapruder film shows. In fact, Josiah Thompson exposed this as a lie when he juxtaposed the Rydberg drawing with a frame from the film. (Thompson, p. 111) Beyond that, the Rydberg drawing of the head wound shows much of the skull bone intact between the entrance, low in the rear skull, and the exit, on the right side above the ear. Yet, in Boswell’s face sheet, he described a gaping 10 by 17 cm. defect near the top of Kennedy’s skull. When Boswell testified, no one asked him why there was a difference between what he told Rydberg and what he wrote on his face sheet. (WC Vol. 2, p. 376 ff)

    19. The most important witness at the murder scene of Officer Tippit was not interviewed by the Warren Commission.

    According to his affidavit, Temple Ford Bowley arrived at the scene of the murder of Officer Tippit when the policeman was already on the ground and appeared dead to him. The key point he makes there is that he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 PM. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 247)

    This is important because the last known witness to see Oswald before the Tippit shooting was Earlene Roberts, his landlady. She saw him through her window. He was outside waiting for a bus – which was going the opposite direction of 10th and Patton, the scene of the Tippit murder. But she pegged the time at 1:04. (ibid, p. 244) It is simply not credible that Oswald could have walked about 9/10 of a mile in six minutes. Or less. Because Bowley told author Joe McBride that when he arrived at he scene, there were already spectators milling around Tippit’s car.

    Bowley’s name is not in the index to the Warren Report, and there is no evidence that the Commission interviewed him.

    20. Two other key witnesses to the Tippit murder were also ignored by the Commission.

    Jim Garrison thought the most important witness to the murder of Tippit was Acquilla Clemons. (On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 197) She said that she saw two men at the scene. One was short and chunky and armed with a gun she saw him reload. The other man was tall and thin. They were in communication with each other, and the shorter man was directed to run the other way from the scene as the taller man. (McBride, p. 492)

    Barry Ernest interviewed another woman named Mrs. Higgins. She lived a few doors down from the scene. When she heard the shots she ran out the front door to look and saw Tippit lying in the street. She caught a glimpse of a man running from the scene with a handgun. She told Barry the man was not Oswald. She also said the time was 1:06. (The Girl on the Stairs, E book version, p. 59)

    Defenders of the Commission have tried to undermine Higgins by saying Tippit radioed in at 1:08. As Hasan Yusuf has pointed out, this depends on which of the radio chronologies submitted to the Warren Commission one picks to use. For in the final version of the radio log, submitted by the FBI, Tippit’s last call in appears to be at about 1:05. (CE 1974, p. 45)

    21. The Commission cannot even accurately tell us when Tippit was pronounced dead.

    How shoddy is the Warren Commission’s chronology of Tippit’s murder?

    They say Tippit was killed at about 1:15 PM. (WR, p. 165) Yet this is the time he was pronounced dead— at Methodist Hospital! Realizing they had a problem, they went to a secondary FBI record. The Bureau had submitted a typed memo based on the records at Hughes Funeral Home. In that typed FBI memo, it said Tippit was pronounced dead at Methodist Hospital at 1: 25.

    There is no attempt in the report to reconcile this memo with the actual hospital record. (Click here and scroll down).

    22. There is not a whiff in the Warren Report about the second wallet left at the scene of the Tippit murder.

    One of the first things any high profile, public murder case should do is secure any and all audio or video recordings at the scene. Those exhibits should then be gone over minute by minute in order to secure any important evidence. This was not done in this case. Or if it was done, either the Warren Commission or the FBI failed to make all the results part of the record.

    On the afternoon of the assassination, Channel 8 in Dallas showed a film by station photographer Ron Reiland. Taken at the scene of the Tippit murder, it depicted a policeman opening and showing a billfold to an FBI agent. That the Commission never secured this film for examination speaks reams about its performance. Because, years later, James Hosty revealed in his book Assignment Oswald that fellow FBI agent Bob Barrett told him that the wallet contained ID for Oswald and Alek Hidell! The problem with this is that the Warren Report tells us that the police confiscated Oswald’s wallet and ID in a car transporting him to city hall. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 101-102) This creates a huge problem for the official story. For it clearly suggests that the DPD deep-sixed the wallet from the Tippit scene to escape the implication that 1.) Someone planted Oswald’s ID at the Tippit scene 2.) Because–as Bowley, Clemmons, and Higgins indicate–Oswald was not there.

    23. There is not a whiff in the Warren Report about the Babushka Lady.

    This is the name given to a woman in a trench coat, with a scarf over her head. She is positioned on the grass opposite the grassy knoll, near prominent witnesses Charles Brehm, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. In other words, to Kennedy’s left. She appears in several films and photographs e.g. the Zapruder film, Muchmore film and Bronson film. The fact that she appears in all of those films and the Commission never appeared to notice her is quite puzzling. But it is made even more so by the following: She has in her hand what appears to be either a still camera or movie camera. And she was using it during the assassination. Because of her location–opposite of Abraham Zapruder–what is on that film may be of the utmost importance. Because you could have a film taken to match up with Abraham Zapruder’s from an opposite angle. It may even contain views of possible assassins atop the knoll.

    There is no evidence that the Commission ever made an attempt to track this witness down through any of its investigative agencies.

    24. The Commission did everything it could to negate the testimony of Victoria Adams.

    Victoria Adams was employed at the Texas School Book Depository on the day of the assassination. Within seconds after hearing the shots, she ran out her office door and down the stairs. Her testimony was always immutable: she neither heard nor saw anyone on those stairs. This posed a serious problem for the Commission. Because their scenario necessitated Oswald tearing down those same stairs right after he took the shots. If Adams did not see or hear him, this clearly indicated Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.

    So the Commission went about trying to weaken and obfuscate her testimony. David Belin asked her to locate where she stopped on the first floor when she descended. But as Barry Ernest discovered, this exhibit, CE 496, does not include a map of the first floor. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 93) The report says she left her office within a minute of the shooting, when she actually left within a few seconds. (ibid) The Commission then failed to question her corroborating witness Sandy Styles, the girl who followed her out and down the stairs. They then buried a document written by her boss, Dorothy Garner, which further substantiated the fact that she was on the stairs within a few seconds of the shooting. (ibid)

    Adams put a spear through the heart of the Commission’s case. The Commission made sure it didn’t reach that far.

    25. The Commission screened testimony in advance to make sure things they did not like did not enter the record.

    There is more than one example of this. (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 232-33) But a vivid and memorable example is what David Belin did with sheriff’s deputy Roger Craig. Craig told author Barry Ernest that when he examined his testimony in the Commission volumes, it was altered 14 times. Craig told Barry the following:

    “When Belin interrogated me – he would ask me questions and, whenever an important question would come up – he would have to know the answer beforehand. He would turn off the recorder and instruct the stenographer to stop taking notes. Then he would ask for the question, and if the answer satisfied him, he would turn the recorder back on, instruct the stenographer to start writing again, and he would ask me the same question and I would answer it.

    However, while the recorder was off, if the answer did not satisfy him, he would turn the recorder back on and instruct the stenographer to start writing again and then he would ask me a completely different question.” Craig added that none of these interruptions were noted in the transcript entered in the Commission volumes. (The Girl on the Stairs, E book version, p.95)

    26. The Warren Commission changed the bullet in the Walker shooting to incriminate Oswald.

    There was no previous firearms violence in Oswald’s past to serve as behavioral precedent for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. General Edwin Walker had been shot at in April of 1963. The case was unsolved by the Dallas Police as of November, and Oswald had never even been a suspect. In fact, his name appears to have never even been brought up. But if one turns to the Warren Report, one will see that the Commission uses the Walker incident to “indicate that in spite of the belief among those who knew him that he was apparently not dangerous, Oswald did not lack the determination and other traits required to carry out a carefully planned killing of another human being…” (WR, p. 406)

    There is one major problem with this verdict (among others). If Oswald misfired at Walker, it would have to have been done with a rifle different than the one the Commission says he used in Dealey Plaza. Because the projectile recovered from the Walker home was described by the Dallas Police as being a steel-jacketed 30.06 bullet. (See Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 49 and the General Offense Report of 4/10/63 filed by officers Van Cleave and McElroy.)

    There is no evidence Oswald ever had this kind of rifle. And the Warren Report never notes this discrepancy in the ammunition used in the Walker shooting versus the Kennedy murder.

    Conclusion

    This section could go on and on and on. Because the record of evidence manipulation by the Commission and its agents is so voluminous as to be book length. But what this plaque does is show that the bias demonstrated in Plaque 1 was then actively implemented by the Warren Commission. To the point that it accepted altered exhibits, allowed testimony to be censored and screened, and deep-sixed important testimony and evidence it did not want to entertain.

    Therefore, the Commission can be shown to be untrustworthy in its presentation of facts and evidence. Especially revealing is that none of this seems random or careless. All of these alterations point in one direction: to incriminate Oswald. As New York Homicide chief Robert Tanenbaum once said about the Warren Commission, he was taken aback by the amount of exculpatory evidence that the Warren Report left out, and also the major problems with the breaks in the evidentiary trail. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 65) What makes this even more shocking is that every single member of the Commission was a lawyer, as was every staff member. In their almost messianic zeal to convict Oswald, they all seem to have utterly forgotten about the rules of evidence and the canon of legal ethics.


     

    PLAQUE THREE: The Warren Commission Manufactures the Case Against Oswald

    Posted July 30, 2014

    Introduction

    In Plaque 1, we showed the insurmountable bias the Warren Commission had against Oswald at the very start. Nor was there a minority to check the excesses of a majority fact finding function. The last did not exist because what constituted the minority; Sen. Russell, Rep. Boggs, Sen. Cooper; were completely marginalized. In fact, we now have this in writing. On his blog, Commission administrator Howard Willens, has posted his diary. In his discussion of a Secret Service matter, Willens writes the following. “Apparently at least Congressman Ford and Mr. Dulles felt that PRS is not adequate to do the job. The two remaining members of the Commission, the Chief Justice and Mr. McCloy disagreed on this issue.” (italics added) Can it be more clear? If the remaining members besides Dulles and Ford were Warren and McCloy, then for Willens, the Commission did not include Russell, Boggs and Cooper. That takes marginalization as far as it can be taken. There simply was no internal check on the majority who were hell bent on railroading Oswald.

    In Plaque 2, we showed that the Commission, because of its innate bias, would then manipulate, discount or eliminate evidence. We will now show how the evidentiary record was fabricated to make Oswald into something he was not: an assassin.

    27. Oswald’s SR 71 money order.

    The SR 71 was the fastest plane that ever flew. It achieved speeds up to, and over, Mach III. Unfortunately for the Warren Report, the post office never used this plane to carry mail from one city to another.

    The Warren Report tells us that Oswald mailed his money order for a rifle on March 12, 1963. It then tells us that the money order arrived at Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago and was deposited at its bank the next day. (WR, p. 119) This is how Oswald allegedly ordered the rifle that killed Kennedy.

    Chicago is about 700 miles from Dallas. Recall, 1963 was way before the advent of computer technology for the post office. It was even before the advent of zip codes. But we are to believe the following: The USPS picked up a money order from a mailbox. They then transported it to the nearest post office. There, it was sorted and shipped out to the airport. It flew to Chicago. It was picked up at the airport there and driven to the main post office. There, it was sorted, placed on a truck and driven to the regional post office. It was then given to a route carrier and he delivered it to Klein’s. After its arrival at Klein’s it was then sorted out according to four categories of origin (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 451) Klein’s then delivered it to their financial repository, the first National Bank of Chicago. There it was deposited in Klein’s account.

    The Warren Report says that all of this happened in a less than 24 hour period. To which we reply with one word: Really?

    28. The invisibly deposited money order.

    This money order was made out for $21.45. Robert Wilmouth was a Vice-President of the First National Bank of Chicago. According to him, the money order should have had four separate stamps on it as it progressed through his bank and the Federal Reserve system. (ibid)

    If such was the case, when one turns to look at this money order, one is surprised at its appearance. (See Volume 17, pgs. 677-78) For it bears none of the markings described by Wilmouth. The only stamp on it is the one prepared by Klein’s for initial deposit. Needless to say, Wilmouth did not testify before the Commission.

    But further, if one looks in the Commission volumes for other checks deposited by Oswald, e.g. from Leslie Welding, Reily Coffee, and Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, one will see that these are properly stamped. (See, for example, Vol. 24 pgs. 886-90)

    29. The invisible money order drop off.

    From the markings on the envelope, the money order was mailed prior to 10:30 AM on March 12, 1963. The problem is that Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald was working at the time, recorded each assignment an employee did during the day. They also recorded how much time he spent on each assignment. When one checks on his assignment sheet for March 12th, one will see that Oswald was continually busy from 8:00 AM until 12:15 PM. (Commission Exhibit 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605) Further, as Gil Jesus has discovered, the HSCA inquiry said the post office where Oswald bought the money order from opened at 8:00 AM. (Box 50, HSCA Segregated CIA files.)

    So when did Oswald mail the money order? Even though Oswald’s time sheet is in the volumes, the Warren Report does not point out this discrepancy. Let alone explain it.

    30. The invisible rifle pick up.

    It’s hard to believe but it appears to be true. In its ten-month investigation, the Warren Commission, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the post office could never produce a single postal employee who gave, or even witnessed the transfer of the rifle to Oswald. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 62, Armstrong, p. 477) In fact, there is no evidence that Oswald ever actually picked up this rifle at the post office. For instance we don’t even know the day on which the rifle was retrieved.

    Maybe that is because the transaction should not have occurred the way the Commission says it did. The rifle was ordered in the name of A. Hidell. But the post office box it arrived at was in the name of Lee Oswald. (ibid) Postal regulations at the time dictated that if a piece of merchandise addressed to one person arrived at a different person’s box; which was the case here; it was to be returned to the sender. Therefore, this rifle should have never gotten to Oswald’s box.

    The Commission had an ingenious way to get around this problem. They wrote that the portion of the postal application Oswald made out listing others who could pick up merchandise at his box was thrown out after the box was closed in May. (WR, p. 121) The report says this was done in accordance with postal rules. Yet, if this was so, why did the post office not discard his application for his New Orleans box?

    Because the Commission was lying. Stewart Galanor wrote the post office in 1966 and asked how long post office box applications were kept in 1963. The answer was for two years after the box was closed.

    31. The rifle the Commission says Oswald ordered is not the rifle the Commission says killed Kennedy.

    This one is shocking even for the Warren Commission. The Commission says that Oswald ordered a 36-inch, 5.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano carbine rifle. But this is not the rifle entered into evidence by the Dallas Police. That rifle is a 40.2 inch, 7.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. Again, this discrepancy is never noted by the Commission nor is it in the Warren Report. (Armstrong, p. 477)

    This issue is so disturbing for Commission defenders that they now say that Klein’s shipped Oswald the wrong rifle because they were out of the 36 inch carbine. To which the reply must be: And they never advised him of this first? When a mail order house is out of a product, they usually tell the customer that, and ask him if he wishes to change the order. At least that is this writer’s experience. There is no evidence or testimony in the record that any such thing happened in this case. Even in interviews of the executives from Klein’s.

    There is evidence the Warren Commission knew this was a serious problem. This is why they entered into the record an irrelevant page from the November, 1963 issue of Field and Stream. This issue did carry an ad for the 40 inch rifle. But the magazine the commission decided Oswald ordered the rifle from was the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman. (Armstrong, p. 477, WC Vol. 20, p. 174)

    32. Arlen Specter did not show Darrell Tomlinson CE 399.

    As we showed in Plaque 2, O. P. Wright’s name is not in the Warren Report. But Arlen Specter did question Darrell Tomlinson. He was the hospital employee who recovered CE 399 and gave it to Wright. In the reports of the questioning of Tomlinson, and in his Warren Commission testimony, there is no evidence that Specter ever showed Tomlinson CE 399. (WC Vol. 6, pgs. 128-34)

    To say this is highly irregular is soft-pedaling it. Wright and Tomlinson are the two men who recovered CE 399 and started it on its journey to the Secret Service and then the FBI lab that night. To not ask the two men who began the chain of possession; in fact, to totally ignore one of them; to certify their exhibit is more than stunning. It invites suspicion. The next point illustrates why.

    33. The Warren Commission accepted a lie by Hoover on the validity of CE 399.

    This was a mistake of the first order. Because it was later discovered that the FBI fabricated evidence to cover up the falsification of CE 399. As Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson later discovered, the man who the FBI said got identifications of CE 399 from Wright and Tomlinson was agent Bardwell Odum. According to Commission Exhibit 2011, when Odum showed the bullet to these two hospital employees, their reply was it “appears to be the same one” but they could not “positively identify it.” (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 282)

    That in itself was a nebulous reply to an important question. But it turned out that it concealed something even worse. For when Aguilar and Thompson visited Odum and asked him about this identification, he denied it ever happened. He said he never showed any bullet to any hospital employees concerning the Kennedy assassination. And if he did he would have recalled it. Because he knew Wright and he also would have filed his own report on it. Which he did not. (ibid, p. 284)

    34. Hoover lied about Elmer Lee Todd’s initials.

    There was another lie Hoover told about CE 399. He said that agent Elmer Lee Todd initialed the bullet. (WC Vol 24, p. 412) This turned out to be false. The Commission never examined the exhibit to see if Todd’s initials are on the bullet. Many years later, researcher John Hunt did so. He found they were not there (click here).

    35. Robert Frazier’s work records proved the lie about CE 399, and the Commission never requested them.

    But beyond that, Hunt’s work with Frazier’s records revealed something perhaps even more disturbing. Todd wrote that he got the bullet from Secret Service Chief Jim Rowley at 8:50 PM. He then drove it to Frazier at the FBI lab. But Frazier’s work records say that he received the “stretcher bullet” at 7:30. How could he have done so if Todd was not there yet? (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 227)

    From this evidence, either CE 399 was substituted or there were two bullets delivered, and one was made to disappear. Either way, the Commission fell for a phony story by Hoover (click here).

    36. CE 543 could not have been fired that day.

    The Commission tells us that there were three shells found near the sixth floor window, the so-called “sniper’s nest.” But one of these shells, CE 543, could not have been fired that day. As ballistics expert Howard Donahue has noted, this shell could not have been used to fire a rifle that day. For the rifle would not have worked properly. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 69) It also contains three sets of identifying marks which reveal it had been loaded and extracted three times before. It also has marks on it from the magazine follower. But the magazine follower only marks the last cartridge in a clip. Which this was not. (Thompson, p. 145)

    Historian Michael Kurtz consulted with forensic pathologist Forest Chapman about this exhibit. He then wrote that the shell “lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald’s rifle.” (Kurtz, Crime of the Century, second edition, p. 51) Chapman concluded that CE 543 was probably dry loaded. The pathologist noted “CE 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base…where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics.” (ibid, p. 52)

    This was certified through experimentation by British researcher Chris Mills. He purchased a Mannlicher Carcano and then experimented repeatedly. The only way he achieved a similar denting effect was by using empty shells. And then the effect only appeared infrequently. Mills concluded this denting effect could only occur with an empty case that had been previously fired, and then only on occasion. (op cit. DiEugenio, p. 69)

    37. In addition to the Commission presenting the wrong rifle, the wrong bullet and the wrong shell, it’s also the wrong bag.

    The Commission tells us that Oswald carried a rifle to work the day of the assassination in a long brown bag. Wesley Frazier and his sister said the bag was carried by Oswald under his arm. The problems with this story are manifold. For instance, there is no photo of this bag in situ taken by the Dallas Police. The eventual paper bag produced by the police had no traces of oil or grease on it even though the rifle had been soaked in a lubricant called Cosmoline for storage purposes.(DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 177) Though the rifle had to be dissembled to fit under Oswald’s armpit, the FBI found no bulges or creases in the paper.

    Further, after a long and detailed analysis by Pat Speer, it appears that the bag in evidence did not match the Depository paper samples. (ibid, p. 179) Further, the police did not officially photograph the alleged gun sack until November 26th!

    All this strongly indicates that the bag the police brought outside the depository is not the same one in evidence today. (Click here for proof).

    38. The Commission now had to alter testimony in order to match the phony evidence of the wrong gun, the wrong bullet, the wrong shell and the wrong bag. They did.

    It was now necessary to place Oswald on the sixth floor in proximity to the southeast window. The Commission’s agents therefore got several people to alter their testimony. For instance, Harold Norman was on the fifth floor that day. He said nothing about hearing shells drop above him in his first FBI interview. Coaxed along by Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, he now vividly recalled shell casings dropping for a convenient three times.(DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 30-31.)

    In his first DPD and FBI interviews, Depository worker Charles Givens said he had seen Oswald on the first floor lunchroom at about 11:50 AM, after he had sent up an elevator for him while they were working on the sixth floor. But when he testified before the Commission, Givens now added something completely new. Now he said that he forgot his cigarettes and went up to the sixth floor for them. There he conveniently saw Oswald near the southeast window. As many researchers, including Sylvia Meagher and Pat Speer have shown, it’s pretty clear that the Dallas Police, specifically, Lt. Revill got Givens to change his story. The Commission, which was aware of the switch, accepted the revised version. (ibid, p. 98).

    Carolyn Arnold was a secretary working in the depository. She was interviewed by the FBI after the assassination. She told them she saw Oswald on the first floor at about 12:25. Years later, reporter Earl Golz showed her what the FBI had written about her. She was shocked. They had altered her statement to read that she saw him “a few minutes before 12:15 PM.” (ibid, p. 96)

    With Oswald now transported up to the sixth floor, there was only Marina Oswald left. In her first Secret Service interviews, she had told the agents she had never seen a rifle with a scope. In fact, she did not even know such rifles existed. Which created a problem. Because the weapon in question did have a scope. Threatened with deportation, when she arrived for her Warren Commission testimony she was confronted with the scoped rifle. She now proclaimed “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” (ibid, pgs.62- 63)

    39. The WC never found any evidence that Oswald picked up the handgun with which it says Tippit was killed.

    This weapon was shipped through the Railroad Express Agency. REA was a forerunner to private mail companies like Federal Express. When one looks at the evidence exhibits in the Warren Report one will see something strange. There is no evidence that Oswald ever picked up this revolver. In fact, the evidence trail stops right there. That is, at the point one would report to REA, show some ID, pay for the weapon, sign off on a receipt, and get a matching one. (WR, p. 173)

    In fact, from the evidence adduced in the report, it does not even appear that the FBI visited REA. Which would be unfathomable. It is more likely they did visit and encountered the same situation there as at the post office with the rifle: No receipts, or witnesses, to attest to the pick-up.

    40. The ballistics evidence in the Tippit case is fishy.

    As many have noted, including Jim Garrison, the Dallas Police could not get the bullets expended in the Tippit case to match the alleged handgun used. (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 199) They only sent one bullet to Washington, even though four were fired at Tippit. Further, on the day of the murder, Dallas police made out an inventory of evidence at the scene. That inventory did not include cartridge cases of any kind. (ibid, p. 200) These were not added until six days after the police got a report that he FBI could not match the bullets to the weapon.

    Just as odd: the shell casings do not match the bullets. Three of the bullets were copper coated and made by Winchester. One bullet was lead colored and made by Remington. But two of the cartridges were from Winchester and two were made by Remington. (ibid, p. 201)

    There is evidence that the shells found at the scene are not those in evidence. Sgt. Gerald Hill allegedly instructed Officer J. M. Poe to mark two of the shells. When Poe examined them for the Commission, he could not detect his markings on the shells. (ibid)

    As Garrison suggested, this sorry trail indicates that once the police could not get a match for the bullets, they then fired the handgun to make sure they had a match for the shells. Even if they were not the same ones found at the scene. The Commission accepted this.

    Conclusion

    The Warren Commission misrepresented its own evidence. As we saw in Plaque 1, from its inception, the Commission had an overwhelming bias against Lee Oswald. And since Oswald was given no defense, and there were no restraints placed upon its bias, the Commission became a runaway prosecution. One which altered testimony and evidence, and accepted the most outlandish proclamations without crosschecking them.

    There is actually internal documentary evidence to prove this point. In late April of 1964, staff administrator Norman Redlich wrote a memo to Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. Discovered by researcher David Josephs, it is a startling letter, one which shows that the Commission literally made up its case as it went along. In discussing the three shot scenario, Redlich is still maintaining that all three shots hit targets: the first into Kennedy, the second into Gov. Connally, and the last into Kennedy’s skull. Yet, this will not be what the Warren Report concludes.

    But Redlich also writes that “As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above.” He also writes that the first shot was probably fired at Zapruder frame 190. This was also changed in the final report since it would have necessitated firing through the branches of an oak tree. He concludes with this: “I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service are totally incorrect, and if left uncorrected will present a completely misleading picture.”

    The problem is this: the FBI and Secret Service were the two prime sources of information for the Commission. (WR, p. xii) Responsible for about 90% of the raw material they had. If these were “incorrect,” then what would the Commission do to “correct” them?

    This memo can be read here.


     

    PLAQUE FOUR: Specter covers up the Medical Evidence

    Posted September 7, 2014

    Introduction

    With what is known about the medical evidence in the JFK case today, looking back at what the Warren Commission did with it in 1964 is almost staggering. Today, with the work of writers like Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, Milicent Cranor, William Law, Pat Speer, and Cyril Wecht, no objective person can deny that something went seriously wrong at the Kennedy autopsy in Bethesda, Maryland. In light of that, the work that the Commission did with this evidence in ’64 needs to be analyzed to appreciate just how careful Arlen Specter was in navigating a minefield.

    41. Although President Kennedy was killed by a bullet wound to the skull, that wound was never dissected by lead pathologist James Humes.

    This fact is unbelievable. In any high profile homicide case in which the victim is killed by a bullet wound, it is standard procedure to track the trajectory of the fatal wound through the body. This has to be done in order to trace the bullet path, to test if the wound is a transiting one, and to note where it entered and exited. All of this information would be crucial as forensic evidence during a legal proceeding.

    The problem is that the Warren Commission was not at all forensic, nor was it a legal proceeding. It was not even a respectable fact finding commission. Shockingly, outside of printing some primary documents, the medical aspects of this case are dealt with in just seven pages in the Warren Report. (pgs. 85-92) In that section, it is not revealed why the head wound was not sectioned. In fact, the report does not even admit there was no sectioning of the brain. In Volume II of the Commission evidence, Arlen Specter never brings up the lack of sectioning of the brain in his examination of James Humes.

    And to add further to the incredulity, the supplemental report to the autopsy, which deals with the skull wound, also does not admit there was no sectioning. (See WR pgs. 544-45)

    42. Without comment, the Warren Report says that President Kennedy’s brain weighed 1500 grams.

    In that supplemental report, it says that after formalin fixation, Kennedy’s brain weighed 1500 grams. (WR, p. 544) There is no comment on this in the 800 pages of the Warren Report. There should have been much comment about it. Why? Because the average weight of a brain for a 40-49 year old man is 1350 grams. Even allowing for the formalin fixing, Kennedy’s brain weight has more volume than it should.

    Which is surprising considering the reports on the condition of the brain. FBI agent Frank O’Neill said half the brain was gone and a significant portion was missing from the rear. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 137) Dr. Thornton Boswell, Humes’ fellow pathologist, said about a third of the brain was missing. Humes himself said about 2/3 of the cerebrum was gone. (ibid) Floyd Reibe, a photographic assistant, said only about half the brain was left when he saw it removed. Jim Sibert, O’Neill’s fellow FBI agent at the autopsy said, “you look at a picture, an anatomical picture of a brain and it’s all there; there was nothing like that.” (ibid) The list of witnesses to how disrupted the brain was could go on and on.

    The point is, given all this testimony, plus what we see happening in the Zapruder film–a terrific head explosion, with matter ejecting high into the air; how could the volume of the brain be what it is reported as? That is, larger than normal.

    If you can believe it, and you can by now, in the entire examination of James Humes, Arlen Specter never even surfaced the issue of the extraordinary weight of the brain. (WC Vol. II, pgs. 348-376) Neither did it come up in the examinations of assistants Thornton Boswell or Pierre Finck. (ibid, pgs. 376-84) Since it was in the record for all concerned to see, that fact clearly suggests deliberate avoidance.

    43. Kennedy’s back wound was not dissected.

    As noted in point 41, Kennedy’s fatal skull wound was not sectioned. Neither was the other wound the Commission says he sustained, the wound to his back. (Which as we saw, Gerald Ford transferred to his neck.) Again, this has to be the first, perhaps only, high profile murder case by gunfire, in which neither wound sustained by the victim was tracked.

    In the examinations of Humes, Boswell, and Pierre Finck, this question is never brought up by Specter. That is: Why did none of the doctors dissect the track of this back wound. Again, this was crucial in determining directionality, if the wound was a transiting one, and if it was, points of entrance and exit. Because there has been so much debate about the nature of this wound, in retrospect, this was a key failing of an autopsy procedure which many have called, one of the worst ever. And that includes Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA. (DiEugenio, op. cit, p. 114)

    The reason Specter never asked why finally surfaced in 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans. Called as a witness by Shaw’s defense team, under cross-examination by assistant DA Al Oser, Finck exposed much of the secrecy and subterfuge around the autopsy.

    Finck revealed that the three autopsy doctors were not really in charge. He said that there were a number of military officers there; a fact which Humes covered up in his Commission testimony; and they actually limited what the doctors were doing. (See James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 300) To the point that a frustrated Humes asked, “Who is in charge here?” An Army General then replied, “I am.” (ibid)

    When Oser tried to get Finck to answer the question Specter had deliberately ignored–namely why was the back wound not tracked–Finck clearly did not want to answer the question. Oser had to pose the query eight times. He even had to ask the judge to direct the witness to reply. Finck finally said, “As I recall I was told not to but I don’t remember by whom.” (ibid, p. 302) One can imagine the impact that confession would have had if it had been printed in the Warren Report. The obvious question then would have been: Why did certain people in the autopsy room not want the back wound dissected? Specter was sure to avoid that Pandora’s Box.

    44. Arlen Specter’s questioning of Thornton Boswell was a travesty.

    As Walt Brown notes in his book, The Warren Omission, Specter asked Boswell a total of 14 questions. When one subtracts the formalities, like tracing his education, that number is reduced to 8. (WC, Vol. II, p. 377)

    Which is shocking. Because, for instance, of the controversy surrounding the face sheet which he allegedly prepared. That sheet places the posterior back wound well down into the back. In fact, in a place which corresponds to the evidence of the blood and holes in Kennedy’s back and shirt. It also allows for a rather large wound in the skull. This wound is not visible in either the autopsy photos or x-rays.

    To ask such a key witness, who had such crucial information, just 8 relevant questions tells us what we need to know about Arlen Specter and his intentions as attorney for the Warren Commission. He was on a mission to conceal, not reveal.

    45. The Commission slept through some of James Humes’ most revealing testimony.

    In Volume II of the Commission volumes, James Humes made some puzzling and disturbing comments.

    In responding to comments by Sen. John Cooper about determining the angle of the bullets from the Texas School Book Depository for the head shot, he said that this could not be done with accuracy, since the exit hole was too broad. But yet, this was not the question. The question was if he could determine the angle from the position Kennedy was in when he was struck. (p. 360) According to the Commission, they knew where this shot was fired from, and Humes indicated where it struck on the rear of the skull. (See Vol. 2, p. 351)

    When Allen Dulles then tried to nail the location down by asking if the bullet was inconsistent with a shot from either behind or from the side, Humes made a reply that is mysterious to this day. He said, “Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.” (ibid, italics added) If the bullet exited from behind it was fired from the front. Stunningly, no one asked him to clarify what he meant by this. In fact, the next question, from John McCloy, was if he thought the head wound was a lethal one. Recall, the Commission had seen the Zapruder film several times.

    As some have said, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

    46. Humes and Specter cooperated on a cover story as to why Humes destroyed the first draft of his autopsy report.

    James Humes originally stated that the reason he burned the first draft of his autopsy report was because he did not want the blood stained report to come into the possession of some cheap souvenir hunter. (WC, Vol. II p. 373)

    Over three decades later, in 1996, under questioning by Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board, this story fell apart. Because Gunn honed in on the fact that the report was written in the privacy of his own home. It is hard to believe that Humes did not wash up before he left the morgue. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 165)

    But further, it was revealed that Humes also burned his unsoiled notes along with the first draft. Deeply agitated, and now outside the friendly patty cake of Specter’s cooperation, Humes began to come unglued. He offered up the startling excuse that, “it was my own materials.” (ibid)

    This leaves two problems. First, what was the real reason Humes burned his report? Second, if he burned his notes, then how does one compare what is in the report with what it is supposed to be based upon?

    47. The Commission lied about not having possession of the autopsy materials.

    On January 21, 1964, Commissioner John McCloy asked J. Lee Rankin if the Commission had all the autopsy materials, including color photographs, in their offices. Rankin replied that yes they did. (See p. 36 of transcript) But according to Warren Commission historian Gerald McKnight, this information was kept hidden from most all of the Commission staff. (McKnight, p.171) The exception being Specter who was shown a photo by Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, Earl Warren’s “bodyguard.” (Specter alluded to this at Cyril Wecht’s Duquesne Symposium in 2003)

    Rankin’s reply to McCloy is disturbing. Because at almost every opportunity in the intervening decades, the Commissioners and counsel had denied they had the materials. But further, they tried to say they did not have them because the Kennedy family denied them access. This was simply not possible. Because these materials, including photos and x-rays, were in the possession–and under the control–of the Secret Service at that time. Which is how Moore had them. So the Commission had to have gotten them from the Secret Service.

    48. In the entire Warren Report, there is no mention of the Harper Fragment.

    The Harper fragment is a crucial piece of forensic evidence. It was named after Billy Harper, the person who found this piece of bone in Dealey Plaza while taking photos on the 23rd. He brought it to his uncle, Dr. Jack Harper, who took it to Dr. A. B. Cairns, chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. Cairns determined it was occipital bone, from the rear of JFK’s head. He also had quality color slides made of both sides of the fragment. This is fortunate, since this piece of evidence has now disappeared.

    Among the important points to remember about the Harper fragment is that, if it is occipital, then it strongly suggests a shot from the front. Secondly, when the House Select Committee tried to place the Harper fragment in their own reconstruction, situated to the front right side of the skull, it did not fit. And the HSCA tried to then ditch the evidence proving it did not. (See Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, by Michael Benson, p. 173; John Hunt, “A Demonstrable Impossibility” at History Matters website)

    For the Commission to try and determine the nature of Kennedy’s head wounds without even noting this piece of evidence is irresponsible.

    49. James Humes lied about the diameter of Kennedy’s anterior neck wound in his testimony.

    Under examination by Specter, Humes said the neck wound measured a few millimeters in diameter. (See WC, Vol. II, p. 362) Since this wound was slit at Parkland Hospital in Dallas for purposes of a tracheotomy, Humes could not have garnered this information on his own. It turns out he got it from Dr. Malcolm Perry, the man who did the tracheotomy. But when one looks at the notation made about this information, it does not say a few millimeters. It says 3-5 mm. (See James Rinnovatore and Allan Eaglesham, The JFK Assassination Revisited, p. 26 for the note)

    The probable reason Humes fudged his testimony was that he had testified that the posterior back wound was 7 x 4 mm. (WC Vol. II, p. 351) This would have meant the entrance wound was larger than the exit wound. Something that could only happen in the solipsistic world of the Warren Commission.

    50. James Humes and Arlen Specter cooperated on a cover story to conceal the true location of Kennedy’s back wound for the Commission.

    Under questioning by Specter, Humes said that the bullet holes in Kennedy’s jacket and shirt line up well with Commission Exhibit 385. (WC, Vol II, p. 366) The bullet holes in those two clothing exhibits both depict the wound to have entered in JFK’s back about six inches below the collar. Which Humes admits to. Anyone can see that CE 385 depicts that wound much further up, near where the neck meets the back. (Click here)

    So how do Specter and Humes explain this deliberate misrepresentation? They say Kennedy was heavily muscled and waving at the crowd. (WC, op. cit) Kennedy was not heavily muscled. He was about 6′ 1″ and 175 pounds. Anyone who has seen photos of him in a swimsuit or at autopsy will tell you he was rather slender. And there is no way in the world that the very mild wave Kennedy performs before he goes behind the freeway sign could account for the raising of that six inch differential. In fact, when Kennedy starts waving, his elbow is on the car door. (Click here)

    These misrepresentations are deliberately designed to cover up the fraud of CE 385. And, in turn, to make the wild fantasy of the Single Bullet Theory palatable.

    Conclusion

    Arlen Specter clearly understood that there were serious problems with the evidence of the autopsy in the JFK case. Which is why, as previously noted, he deep-sixed the Sibert-O’Neill report made by the FBI.

    The questioning of the three pathologists by Specter was a masterpiece of avoidance. Or, in plain language, a cover up. The true facts of this horrendous autopsy did not begin to be exposed until the trial of Clay Shaw–five years later in New Orleans. There, under a real examination, Pierre Finck first revealed that the doctors were not running the autopsy. The scores of officers in the room were. This explains why the back wound was not dissected and the brain not sectioned. Without those two practices, we do not know the direction of the bullets through the skull, throat and back; nor do we know how many bullets struck; nor do we know if all the wounds were transiting.

    Because of Specter, we also did not discover the real circumstances of Dr. Humes burning his first autopsy draft and notes. And because of Specter and Humes cooperation on a deception, the true nature of Kennedy’s back wound, and the problems in connecting it with the throat wound, were camouflaged. All of these dodges, and more, were meant to disguise evidence of more than three shots. And therefore, more than one assassin.

    If the Commission had been a true legal proceeding, Specter’s actions would have been just cause to begin a disbarment case against him.


     

    PLAQUE FIVE: The Conspiracy the Commission Couldn’t Find

    Posted September 24, 2014

    Introduction

    In this final series, we will center on information that most certainly indicated a plot, or at least suggested a conspiratorial set of associations in the JFK case. Almost all the material discussed here was available back in 1964. The problem was that the agencies that the Commission relied upon were not forthcoming in forwarding the facts to the Commission. In other words, the Commission was more or less at the mercy of men like J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI, James Rowley and Elmer Moore at the Secret Service, and Richard Helms and James Angleton at the CIA. Since those three agencies provided the overwhelming majority of information to the Commission, the investigation was doomed from the start.

    51. Within 72 hours of the assassination, David Ferrie was trying to deny his association with Oswald. And he broke the law to do so.

    After Jim Garrison turned Ferrie over to the FBI, Oswald’s longtime friend and CAP colleague lied his head off to the Bureau. He said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or used one, and he would not even know how to use one. Considering his activities as a CIA trainer for the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose, these were clear deceptions.

    He also said he never knew Oswald and that Oswald was not a member of a CAP squadron in New Orleans.

    He then said he did not know Sergio Arcacha Smith from 544 Camp Street, and he had no association with any Cuban exile group since 1961. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 177)

    Every one of these statements was a lie. Further, it is a crime to perjure yourself to an FBI agent in an investigation. (ibid) That Hoover did not indict Ferrie, shows that 1.) He did not give a damn about Kennedy’s murder and 2.) The Commission was at his mercy.

    52. The FBI knew about Ferrie’s friendship with Oswald through CAP member Chuck Francis, and they knew about the association of Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw in the Clinton-Jackson area.

    What makes Point 51 above even worse is that the Bureau had the evidence to prove Ferrie was lying to them. After the assassination, CAP member Chuck Francis was interviewed by the Bureau. Francis took the now famous CAP photo depicting Ferrie with Oswald at a picnic. (ibid, p. 233) How could Ferrie have denied that evidence? In fact, he was worried about it. Since in the days following the assassination, he called various CAP members to see if they had any pictures of him with Oswald. The FBI knew about these frantic calls also. (ibid) As Vincent Bugliosi would say, the perjury by Ferrie plus his attempt at obstruction of justice would indicate a “consciousness of guilt.”

    Through the work of Joan Mellen, we know that the Bureau had a report by Reeves Morgan that Oswald had been in the Clinton/Jackson area that summer with two men who fit the description of Ferrie and Clay Shaw. The FBI then visited the hospital personnel office where Oswald went to apply for a job. (ibid)

    There is no evidence that Hoover forwarded any of this important information to the Commission.

    53. Both the CIA and the FBI had counter-intelligence programs active in 1963 against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    At the 20th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, Commission counsel David Belin was one of the featured guests on a Nightline segment. During the telecast he made an astonishing declaration: He proclaimed he had seen every CIA document on the Kennedy case. If he was telling the truth, then why did he not say that the Agency, as well as the Bureau, had counter-intelligence programs arrayed against the FPCC in 1963, and that David Phillips headed the CIA operation? (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 236)

    This would seem to most to be of extreme evidentiary importance. Because Oswald formed his own one-man operation for the FPCC in New Orleans while working out of Guy Banister’s office. In fact, he even put Banister’s address on some of his FPCC flyers. And the FBI knew that also. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 102) Needless to say, this would all seem to suggest that perhaps Oswald was not really a communist; but at work, through Banister’s office, for Phillips’ anti-FPCC campaign.

    Which leads us to an amazing fact.

    54. You will not find the name of David Phillips in the 19,000 pages of the Commission volumes.

    In retrospect, this is startling. Why? Because today Phillips is seen as one of the chief mid-level suspects in the Kennedy case. Oswald was seen with Phillips at the Southland Building in Dallas in late summer of 1963. Phillips occupied the Cuban desk in Mexico City while Oswald was allegedly there in late September and early October, 1963. And if Oswald was an agent provocateur for the CIA infiltrating the FPCC, then Phillips had to have known about his activities in New Orleans that summer. Since he was in charge of coordinating them.

    In other words, Phillips seems to have been in direct proximity to Oswald throughout 1963. In fact, he told his brother James before he died that he was in Dallas the day JFK was killed. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 364)

    55. There is direct evidence and testimony linking Phillips to suspects in the JFK case in New Orleans.

    After Gordon Novel first met Sergio Arcacha Smith, Arcacha invited him to a meeting in Guy Banister’s office. The subject was arranging a telethon in New Orleans to support the anti-Castro cause. Joining the trio was a fourth man, a Mr. Phillips. In a sworn deposition, Novel’s description of Mr. Phillips closely aligns with David Phillips. (See William Davy, Let Justice be Done, pgs. 22-24)

    Secondly, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs disaster, the CIA made a report on the Belle Chasse training camp south of New Orleans. Ferrie and Arcacha Smith were both heavily involved in this camp’s activities. (ibid, p. 30) That report is detailed in all aspects of the history of the camp including when it opened, who was trained there, how many were trained, and what they were trained in. Only someone with firsthand knowledge of its activities could have written the memo. At the end, the memo reads, “the training camp was entirely Agency controlled and the training was conducted by Agency personnel.” The memo was signed by Phillips. (ibid, p. 31)

    Third, during the preparations for Operation Mongoose, another camp was opened across Lake Pontchartrain. Ferrie was a drill instructor at this camp also. (ibid, p. 30) When Bob Tanenbaum was Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA, he saw a film that was probably from this camp. He brought in witnesses to view it to get positive identifications. Three of the identified men were Oswald, Banister and Phillips. (ibid, p. 30)

    As the reader can see, we now have evidence linking the people on the ground around Oswald in the summer of 1963, with a man one or two steps upward in the CIA’s chain of command. This would be an important development if one were seeking out a conspiracy.

    56. The names of Rose Cheramie and Richard Case Nagell are not in the Warren Report.

    Along with Sylvia Odio, this trio forms perhaps the most important evidence of a conspiracy before the fact. In fact, Jim Garrison once wrote that Nagell was the most important witness there was. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 94) Nagell was a CIA operative who was hired out of Mexico City by the KGB. They heard there was a plot brewing to kill Kennedy. They thought they would be implicated in it. They hired Nagell to track it down. (ibid, pgs. 95-96) By the fall of 1963, Nagell was hot on the trail of David Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha Smith, and Carlos Quiroga. He was convinced that Oswald, who the KGB had given him a photo of at the start, was being set up by these men. (ibid, p. 97)

    Rose Cheramie predicted the assassination in advance. She had been abandoned by two men who were talking about the plot as the trio was enacting a drug deal. After she was abandoned, she was having withdrawal symptoms. But she predicted to the officer who picked her up and drove her to a state hospital that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas shortly. (ibid, p. 78) When this turned out to be true, the officer returned to her and got more details.

    There is no evidence the Commission ever investigated Cheramie. But Jim Garrison did. He got identifications of Cheramie’s companions. They turned out to be Sergio Arcacha Smith and CIA operative Emilio Santana.

    57. The Commission’s investigation of Oswald in Mexico City was so skimpy as to be negligent.

    Declassified in 1996, this was called the Slawson-Coleman report, named after staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman. The man who coordinated with the Commission about their visit to Mexico City was CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 14) Helms advised that every step they took in Mexico that Slawson and Coleman deal “on the spot with the CIA representative.” (ibid) Consequently, this 37-page report does not mention Anne Goodpasture, or the Tarasoffs. Goodpasture has become an incredibly important figure today. Because she controlled the tapes and photo surveillance files from the Cuban and Russian consulates for suspect David Phillips. The Tarasoffs were the married couple that did the Russian translations from the surveillance tapes. Further, the Commission never interviewed Silvia Duran, the receptionist in the Cuban embassy who actually spent the most time with Oswald; or whoever this person was.

    Why do I say that? Because the Slawson/Coleman report never reveals the following information: 1.) Duran talked to an “Oswald” who was short and blonde, not the real Oswald (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 349) 2.) The record says Oswald visited the embassies a total of five times. There should be ten pictures the CIA took of him entering and exiting the buildings. There are none. 3.) The FBI heard tapes the CIA said were of Oswald. The agents interviewing Oswald in detention said the man they talked to was not the man on the tapes. (ibid, p. 357) Which poses the question: was Oswald in Mexico City?

    Maybe, but maybe not. Either way, it is doubtful he did the things the Commission said he did. In fact, the HSCA prepared two perjury indictments for the Justice Department to serve on this issue. One was for Phillips and one for Goodpasture. The Mexico City report issued by the HSCA, authored by Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez; which was 400 pages long– enumerates numerous lies told to the Committee by those two. And it strongly indicates someone was manipulating the surveillance record. If that is so, then one has to wonder if it was a coincidence that this was done to the man who would be accused of killing Kennedy in advance of the assassination.

    58. The chief witnesses against Oswald were Ruth and Michael Paine.

    As Walt Brown notes in his book, The Warren Omission, the Paines were in the witness chair on a combined nine days. In total, they were asked well over 6,000 questions. In fact, Ruth was asked the most questions of any single witness. (See Brown, pgs. 262-63) Yet, except for Senator Richard Russell, not one commissioner ever posed any queries as to who they really were, what they did in this case, and why the Commission used them so extensively. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 195) But there is a telltale piece of evidence about all that. It appears that Allen Dulles solicited old friends of his from the Eastern Establishment to give the couple public endorsements as early as December of 1963; which was well before any witnesses were called, Or the Commission’s case took shape. (ibid)

    But Dulles went even further about this connection. In private, he commented that the JFK researchers “would have had a field day if they had known…he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder…and that one of Mary Bancroft’s childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald.” (ibid, p. 198) The Mary Bancroft Dulles was referring to had been an OSS agent he had run during World War II. Mary was a lifelong friend with Ruth Forbes, Michael Paine’s mother.

    To make a long story short, both Ruth and Michael Paine came from family backgrounds that are intertwined with the power elite and the CIA. For instance, Ruth’s sister, Sylvia Hoke worked for the Agency in 1963, a fact the CIA and Ruth tried to keep from Jim Garrison. Sylvia’s husband worked for the Agency for International Development, which was closely affiliated with the Agency. Later in life, Ruth admitted to a friend her father worked for the CIA also. And during the Contra war in Nicaragua, many American Sandinista sympathizers on the scene saw Ruth’s activities there as being CIA sponsored. (ibid, pgs. 197, 199) There is also evidence that a man fitting the description of Michael Paine was at a restaurant adjacent to SMU trying to sniff out students who were sympathetic to Castro. Further, there were early reports that Dallas deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, in his search of the Paine household, discovered several “metal filing cabinets full of letter, maps, records, and index cards, with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.” (ibid, p. 198) There is also evidence that the Paines played a role in manufacturing the case against Oswald. For instance, they claimed the Minox spy camera found in Oswald’s belongings really belonged to Michael. (ibid, p. 207.) For a survey of the case against the Paines see, James DiEugenio’s Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 155-56, 194-208. (Also, click here for a visual essay). This declassified record makes the Paines appear fishier than an aquarium.

    59. There is no mention of Carl Mather of Collins Radio in the Warren Report.

    Carl Mather and his wife were good friends with Officer Tippit and his wife Marie. In fact, they went over to the Tippit home to console Marie at about 3:30 PM. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 527) What makes that so interesting is what happened about 2 hours earlier.

    In Oak Cliff, on Davis Street horns were blaring and police cars moving within an hour of the assassination due to the murder of Tippit in that area. A veteran auto mechanic named T. F. White saw a man in a car looking suspicious, like he was trying to hide himself. This was in the parking lot of the El Chico Restaurant across the street from his auto garage. Which was about six blocks from the scene of the Tippit murder. White went over to the car and got a better look at the man and took down the license plate. When he got home that night and watched TV, he told his wife that the man in the car was Oswald. (ibid, p. 526)

    When reporter Wes Wise heard about the story, he got the license plate number checked out. It belonged to Carl Mather. Thus began the mystery of how either Oswald, or a double, got in a car after the assassination with a license plate belonging to Tippit’s friend Mather. To make it worse, Mather worked for a CIA related company called Collins Radio. Collins did work for the White House, had contracts in Vietnam and worked with Cuban exiles on ships used in raids on Castro’s Cuba. (ibid, pgs. 527-28)

    That the Warren Report does not mention this pregnant lead is incredible.

    60. The Warren Report says that Jack Ruby had no significant connections to organized crime figures.

    Since they did not know about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro, maybe the Commission did not think Santo Trafficante was significant. But Trafficante was one of the three mobsters the CIA contacted in order to do away with Fidel Castro (the other two were John Roselli and Sam Giancana.) There were reliable reports, from more than one source, that Ruby visited Trafficante while he was imprisoned by Castro at Tresconia prison in late 1959. One eyewitness even said that he saw Ruby serving the mobster a meal. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, pgs. 455-56)

    Another witness said that on this trip to Cuba, Ruby was also seen with Lewis McWillie. McWillie was a former manager of Trafficante’s gambling casinos in Havana. Ruby actually shipped handguns to McWillie in Cuba. By all accounts Ruby idolized McWillie; and would do almost anything for him. (ibid, p. 272)

    61. Officer Patrick Dean lied about how Ruby could have gotten into the city hall basement on Sunday November 24th to kill Oswald.

    Dean was in charge of security for the transfer of Oswald that day. He told Burt Griffin of the Commission that Ruby would have needed a key to get into a door that ran along the alleyway behind the building. Griffin suspected Dean was lying about this point. Griffin wrote a memo saying he had reason to think that Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp. But Dean was urging Ruby to say this as a part of a cover up. Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin would not back Griffin on this and succumbed to pressure out of Dallas, especially from DA Henry Wade. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 205-06)

    It turned out that Dean was lying on this point. When the HSCA investigated this issue they found out that Ruby did not need a key to enter that door. They further found out that Dean flunked his polygraph test administered by the Dallas Police; even though he wrote his own questions! When the HSCA went looking for this test, it was nowhere to be found. (ibid, p. 205)

    62. The FBI falsified Jack Ruby’s polygraph test.

    The HSCA appointed a panel of polygraph experts to examine the records of Jack Ruby’s lie detector test for the Warren Commission. This was done by an FBI expert named Bell Herndon. The Commission accepted Herndon’s verdict that Ruby had passed the test. The HSCA panel did not. In fact, they exposed the test as being so faulty as to be about worthless. The panel said that Herndon violated at least ten basic protocols of polygraph technique. These ranged from having too many people in the room; which would cause diversions and false readings; to asking way too many questions. There were over 100; which is about six times as many as there should have been. (ibid, p. 244)

    This was crucial. Because as the panel explained, liars become immune to showing physiological stimuli if questioned for too long. In other words, the subject could lie and get away with it. Herndon also confused the types of questions; relevant, irrelevant, and control questions; so that it was hard to arrange a chart based on accurate readings. (ibid)

    Finally, Herndon completely altered the proper methods of using the Galvanic Skin Response machine (GSR). He started it at a low point of only 25% capacity, and then lowered it. The panel said the machine should never have been set that low. But it should have been raised, not lowered, later. (ibid, p. 245) This is interesting because when Ruby was asked, “Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?”; to which he replied in the negative; it registered the largest GSR reaction in the first test series. (ibid, pgs. 245-46)

    63. The Dallas Police hid the best witness to the killing of Oswald by Ruby.

    Sgt. Don Flusche was never examined by the Warren Commission. There are indications that the DPD did not want the Commission to know about him. (ibid, p, 204) Flusche was in a perfect position to watch the ramp from Main Street. He had parked his car across the street and was leaning on it during the entire episode of Ruby shooting Oswald. Further, he knew Ruby. He told HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty that “There was no doubt in his mind that Ruby did not walk down the ramp and further did not walk down Main Street anywhere near the Ramp.” (ibid, p. 203)

    Conclusion

    Much of the above evidence was kept from the Commission. Which shows how weak and controlled the whole exercise was. Without independent investigators, the Commission was reliant on the good will of bodies like the FBI and Dallas Police; who both had much to hide in regards to the murders of Kennedy, Tippit and Oswald.

    But the clear outlines of a conspiratorial design is obvious in the evidence above. One in which Oswald is unconsciously manipulated by those around him in New Orleans and Mexico City e.g. Ferrie and Phillips. He then returns to Dallas where he and his wife are in the clutches of their false friends, Ruth and Michael Paine. Kennedy is killed, and the CIA brings in its old ally the Mafia. McWillie and Trafficante find the perfect man, one with prolific ties to the police, to polish off Oswald before he can talk.

    Is this what happened? We don’t know that for sure since this scenario was never investigated at the time. But we know today that it is perfectly plausible; much more so than the wild fantasy proposed in the Warren Report.

    We will stop at 63 pieces of evidence, for two reasons. First that is ten more than Vincent Bugliosi brought up in Reclaiming History to indict Oswald. And ours are much more solid and convincing than his. Second, it’s the year Kennedy was killed. And as many studies have shown e.g. Larry Sabato’s in The Kennedy Half Century; the vast majority of Americans felt that something went awry with America after Kennedy’s murder.

    We agree. So although we could easily go to one hundred, 63 is a good number to stop at.

  • Harrison E. Livingstone, Panjandrum: Secrets of the JFK X-rays


    The implied claim on these pages that both bone and brain are missing is fallacious, or that the brain is proven gone by so much darkness and the bone is still there is a non sequetor [sic] and quite wrong.
    ~Harrison E. Livingstone [henceforth, HEL], Panjandrum (p. 138)

    So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage-leaf to make an apple-pie; and at the same time a great she-bear, coming up the street, pops its head into the shop. “What! No soap?” So he died, and she very imprudently married the barber; and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblillies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button at top, and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can till the gunpowder ran out at the heels of their boots.
    ~Samuel Foote

    This [DM: i.e., the above gibberish by Foote – not the initial babble from Livingstone] introduced the nonsense term “The Grand Panjandrum” into the English language and the name was adopted for the Panjandrum or Great Panjandrum, an experimental World War II-era explosive device.
    ~Wikipedia on Samuel Foote


    NOTE: Quotations from Panjandrum in this review are in italics; page references are to Panjandrum.


    The Main Issue

    In essence, Panjandrum is merely about two questions, both related to the anterior portion of JFK’s skull X-rays:

    1. Where was brain missing?
    2. Where was bone missing?

    The answers (my answers) are also simple:

    1. Frontal brain was absent in a fist-sized area, best seen on the lateral X-ray (p. 89-of Panjandrum). I have previously labeled this as the “Dark Area”-see slide 5 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/david-w-mantik-md-phd-on-jfk-skull-x.html (the Dark Area is circled in white) or The Assassinations (2003), edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 265, Figure 5A. The latter is the Mantik/Cyril Wecht essay cited by HEL.
    2. Bone was missing over the skull vertex, including anterior to the coronal suture, particularly on the right side; see my sketch in Panjandrum (p. 10). It was also missing from the right forehead/temple area.

    Although HEL seems to hint otherwise, I would emphasize that neither of my two answers is due to (or in any way related to) altered X-rays. HEL claims (p. 50) that I “jump around,” and also states (p. 36) that I have changed my mind. He even cites the “corrupt turn-about” of Mantik and Wecht (p. 46) and goes on to claim (pp. 134-135) that I have “walked away from [my] densitometer findings…” Of course, none of this is true – my opinions on these issues have not changed.

    Neither of my two above answers, however, directly addresses a slightly different issue: What was the condition of JFK’s right “face”? Livingstone struggles valiantly to state his question clearly, but the following is as clear as he ever gets (although not until p. 139): “It seems to me quite clear that both brain and bone are missing on the front right of the at least partly false [sic] double-imaged [sic] skull X-rays.” So after many pages, we finally learn that, by “face,” he does not mean the periorbital area or the maxillary bone, which most laymen would consider to be the face. Although his syntax fails to make his distinction clearly, his image of JFK’s lateral X-ray (p. 93) decisively clarifies this issue: his white arrow points to the forehead/temple, not to the maxillary area. (The latter includes the area around the nose and above the jaw.)

    The issue of missing “facial bone” totally possesses HEL. But here is what is most curious: my image of the forehead/temple area (p. 10) and JFK autopsy pathologist Thornton Boswell’s sketch (p. 11) are in remarkable agreement with each other-i.e., this area is indeed absent. That should have satisfied HEL, since that is his point! Although Livingstone rants endlessly about this, stating that the right temple/forehead is absent (assuming that his syntax can be deciphered), he does not seem to recognize that my image shows precisely that bone to be absent. In other words, since we agree about this, he did not need to write this book. Even Boswell’s sketch agrees with me (and HEL) that the right temple/forehead was absent. If, on the other hand, HEL’s clamor is about the sphenoid bone (which is near the front of the skull behind the eyes) then we (Boswell and I) may actually disagree with HEL: Boswell and I agree that the sphenoid bone is present. Curiously enough, though, HEL never actually discusses the sphenoid bone, nor does he ever use that word. This means that his entire book is a tempest in a teapot. There is literally nothing more to say about his repeated and frenzied fears about Mantik and Wecht (pp. 1, 3, 7, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 46, 50, 51, 55, 75, etc.).

    More Eccentricities from HEL

    On p. 2. HEL quotes Boswell, who stated that one of the late arriving fragments formed part of the EOP entry hole. But Boswell is the only pathologist to state this-none of the others ever endorsed that interpretation. In fact, the OD data for these fragments renders such a conclusion quite unlikely. The average OD of the large triangular fragment (likely frontal bone) is 0.92. But both of the other two fragments have average densities consistent with thinner bones: 1.24 and 1.31. Occipital bone, however, should be thicker (i.e., have a lower OD) than frontal bone. Most likely therefore, Boswell was wrong about this, i.e., neither of these two smaller fragments likely formed part of the entrance hole. p. 6. HEL states that Humes and Boswell recalled removing the brain before taking X-rays. In fact, taking X-rays after the brain was gone would serve little purpose; the point was to visualize metallic particles within the brain. HEL also recalls that I estimated the amount of brain present via OD data-which is mostly what the Mantik/Wecht (M/W) essay is about. Later (p. 52) HEL strongly implies that no brain was present in the skull X-rays. And this statement is made despite all of the OD data presented (to the opposite conclusion) in the M/W essay, i.e., that essay estimated the fraction of residual brain at multiple measured sites. HEL repeats his claim that the skull X-rays contain no brain (pp. 81 and 140), but he does not even hint at why the OD data might be incorrect (in showing the presence of some brain); in fact he totally ignores the OD data. p. 8. “…but he [Mantik] failed to tell us that the two images [i.e., the lateral and AP skull X-rays] were in conflict.” This is absurd, inasmuch as this was precisely the point of my presentation in NYC (pp. 106-107, 133) at HEL’s own press conference (Assassination Science, 1998, edited by James Fetzer, pp. 153-160). This same issue recurs later (p. 29). Paradoxically, after that (p. 39), HEL recalls that I told him that the two X-rays were “incompatible.” He has thereby stated two directly opposite opinions about this matter.

    pp. 8-9. HEL claims that I describe the back of the head as intact, but then on the very next page, he quotes me as saying that the Harper fragment derived from the back of the head. He cannot have it both ways-only one of these statements can be true. For more detail see my upcoming essay, “The Harper Fragment Revisited,” at the CTKA website. There can now be little doubt that the Harper fragment was occipital.

    pp. 19-20. HEL claims that “David Lifton never subscribed to the idea that the X-rays and photographs of the body were forged…” But on the next page (p. 20), we read “Yet a few investigators bought into Lifton’s whole ball of wax: Horne and Mantik among them.” HEL here is not even consistent. After all, Horne and I do have an opposite opinion (from HEL’s depiction of Lifton)-we believe that some critical X-rays and photographs indeed have been altered.

    pp. 20-21. “The large head wound did not change at all before the autopsy, contrary to the claims of David Lifton. Dr. Mantik agrees with my findings that the wound did not change before Bethesda.” But the head wound did change (purely as a side effect) of the illicit efforts of James Humes at Bethesda to remove bullet fragments from the brain before the official autopsy began. In retrospect, this was the most important deception in the entire medical cover-up. Absent this step, a conspiracy would have been obvious to all.

    p. 21. “This led to Lifton’s biggest lie of all: that the body had been stolen and altered, which was bought hook, line, and sinker by …Horne and Mantik…” Also note this (p. 54): “Mantik buys into Lifton’s body theft and alteration theories lock, stock, and barrel, and shows you that Horne accepts most of it.” This is, of course, nonsense; neither Horne nor I believe in body alteration as described by Lifton. More to the point, Horne and I strongly suspect that Humes illicitly removed the brain before the official autopsy began. This was done, not to alter the appearance of the body, but solely in order to remove bullet fragments from the brain (to eliminate evidence for multiple head shots).

    p. 22. HEL believes that the Parkland MDs cut the cerebellum loose and that they also probed the throat wound. This is pure drivel; there is absolutely no evidence for either of these statements-and HEL cites none.

    p. 24. HEL quotes from his own book Killing the Truth (where he had stated his personal opinion): “The lateral X-rays show no significant loss of bone whatsoever on the rear of the head…” Of course, if HEL truly believes that the occiput was intact, then he disagrees with virtually all of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, who saw a large hole there.

    p. 30. “So the term that needed to be better defined was ‘frontal.’ I was correct in saying that the frontal area down to the floor of the right orbit seemed to be missing in at least the AP X-ray.” HEL astonishingly claims (p. 138) that I once said the right orbit was missing. Even worse, he claims that “all other doctors” believed that the right orbit was missing (p. 141)! This is more rubbish-the AP X-ray clearly shows the entire right orbit. After all of this, it is only appropriate that we read HEL’s final comment on the right orbit (p. 139): “…because we know that it was impossible that any of the frontal or even forehead and orbital area bone or the vertex of the head was in fact lost, which it was not.” [DM: I did not make this up.]

    p. 33. HEL wonders if the X-rays have been enhanced too much [DM: for the original X-rays this would be an oxymoron], or possibly whether there was too much light [DM: another oxymoron-light is not used to expose original X-ray films] or whether the exposure of the X-ray beam was wrong. Regarding the latter, see a detailed analysis in my critique of Pat Speer, who raised the same question. (See item 10: “Were JFK’s X-rays overexposed?” at JFK Autopsy X-rays: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer.) In fact, the X-rays were properly exposed. None of this makes any sense.

    p. 45. HEL believes that the 6.5 mm fragment represents the base of a bullet. This is more than astonishing. Based on my extensive OD data (Assassination Science, pp. 120-137), HEL once seemed convinced that this 6.5 mm object was merely an artifact. This was, after all, the chief result of my OD data. But now HEL seems to have forgotten his prior agreement with me. In any case, the official story is that the nose and base of this bullet were found inside the limousine-so how can the base be visible on the X-ray? Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert has also stated that the 6.5 mm object must be an artifact. HEL disagrees with both of us.

    p. 49. “No right lateral X-ray survives-just two left ones…” This is more drivel -one of each side exists in the Archives. If they were both from the same side I would have been able to visualize a 3D image (of metallic particles) via my stereo viewer, which I did try to see. That did not happen. Furthermore, radiology assistant Jerrol Custer unavoidably omitted the back of one of the laterals because of space constraints in the morgue; that alone demonstrates asymmetry between the two lateral X-rays. But numerous radiologists have likewise attested to both a left and right lateral. I agree with them.

    p. 54. “A primary reason for altering the skull X-rays was that the large defect or hole in the back of the head created by an exiting bullet (seen by nearly all witnesses) had to be obliterated…” He repeats this again (page 75). The need for such a cover-up is totally false, as I discuss in detail in upcoming Harper fragment essay at the CTKA website; the defect caused by the Harper fragment lies at the very rear of the skull. Missing bone due to the Harper fragment is not (and never was) obvious on the X-rays, so it did not need to be covered up. I have never held (or stated) any other position, although others have misinterpreted my position on this matter.

    p. 59. HEL implies that the M/W essay was suppressed, which is why he (HEL) could not obtain a copy. Our editor, Jim DiEugenio, however reports that this is false. Rather, the book is out of print and can only be purchased via e-book format.

    p. 74. HEL asks how JFK’s brain got out of the skull. For this, he should read Horne’s discussion (Volume IV, e.g., p. 1005). Although HEL later (pp. 152-153) takes severe umbrage at my generally favorable review of Horne’s Volume IV (http://assassinationscience.com/HorneReview.pdf), HEL missed the fundamental point: Humes had to remove the brain (illicitly, before the official autopsy began) in order to extract bullet fragments-or a conspiracy would have been obvious.

    pp. 75-154. The discussion over these many pages is often repetitious; rather little new is introduced. However, some of these pages have already been cited above.

    p. 155. HEL states that the Boyajian casket entry is a fantasy that ends with a bronze casket. He recalls Dallas doctor Kemp Clark’s description (in the Warren Report) of a “bronze colored plastic casket.” Horne has discussed these issues in great detail (Volume IV, pp. 988-1013). HEL does not wish to address this evidence.

    p. 159. HEL accepts some witnesses for a tangential shot from the (right) front. See my Fiester review and my Harper fragment essay (previously cited) for more about the (almost certain) tangential headshot from the right front, which is consistent with Kemp Clark’s description (and much other evidence).

    p. 160. “…it was not necessarily Kennedy’s head, but someone else’s who they killed to manufacture this evidence.” [DM: I did not make this up-also see p. 165.] HEL does not tell us here that the HSCA experts confirmed that the skull X-rays were, in fact, JFK’s (p. 117). I, too, confirmed this, which HEL also fails to say. In addition, he does not tell us who “they” were, nor does he offer any details about when or who was substituted for JFK. And if it really was someone else, what are the odds that the substitute body also had no adrenal glands-and also had myelogram contrast dye in the lumbar area? And where did JFK’s actual body (or head) go? Although HEL accuses me of ignoring “many complexities” (p. 159), perhaps HEL is merely describing himself.

    p. 163. “The X-rays are what is called ‘subtraction,’ which is a composite made from several different pictures.” HEL once seemed to understand (from me) that they were actually prepared via a double exposure (i.e., addition-not subtraction) in the dark room, but his memory has now faded.

    p. 166. “All I know is, we do not need optical densitometry to prove any issue…” If HEL is correct about this, then all of the following conclusions go into the trash can: (1) the artifactual character of the 6.5 mm object, (2) the White Patch, (3) the near total absence of frontal brain, (4) the surprising amount of missing brain on both left and right sides of the skull, (5) the optical densities of the background air (which prove that the X-ray exposures were indeed reasonable), (6) the absence of a bullet entry or exit on the back of the skull, (7) the absence of soft tissue (brain, in particular) lying on the outside the skull, and (8) objective evidence for the location of the Harper fragment. HEL seems blissfully ignorant of how full his trash can would become.

    Conclusions

    HEL was once a heroic pioneer in the medical evidence. His books (and Lifton’s contributions, too) were invaluable introductions for me. For that I am still grateful to both. Unfortunately, I see little of value in this book, but rather lots of pointless confusion. The book should not have been written-and it should not be read.

  • Gerald Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald

    Gerald Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald


    [Please note: All references to Dale Myers’ book With Malice in the essay below is to the 2013 (Kindle) edition, which this writer reviewed on the CTKA.net website. Due to the overall length of the essay, segments of the essay have been removed from the text below, and will be made available on this writer’s blog in due time].


    I first wrote about my suspicions concerning DPD Sergeant Gerald Lynn Hill on my blog in November, 2012. My inspiration for writing about Hill’s activities on the day of President Kennedy’s assassination came about after reading through the research of Lee Farley and Duke Lane posted on John Simkin’s Spartacus education forum.

    On the day of President Kennedy’s assassination, Gerald Hill was the only DPD officer who was on the sixth floor of the Texas School book depository building following the assassination, was allegedly at the murder scene of DPD officer J.D. Tippit (as I explain in the essay, it is doubtful that he ever was at the murder scene), was at the Texas theater when Oswald was arrested for Tippit’s murder, and was inside the unmarked DPD car which escorted Oswald to DPD headquarters following his arrest. Finally, and most significantly of all, Hill had possession of the revolver (WCE 143) which Oswald allegedly used to kill Tippit with, inside the car as Oswald was escorted to DPD headquarters (as explained in this essay under the subheading “The framing of Oswald inside the Theater,” Hill had by all likelihood framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder).

    It is also this writer’s belief that Hill was one of the two officers inside DPD squad the car seen by Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of the rooming house located at 1026 North Beckley, where Oswald was allegedly living at the time of the assassination (researcher Lee Farley has made the case that it was actually Larry Crafard who was living at the rooming house at the time of the assassination. See the thread entitled “A House of Cards?” on Greg Parker’s research forum). What follows is a much more detailed and thorough discussion of Gerald Hill’s activities on the day of the assassination than what was previously written on this writer’s blog. It is this writer’s firm belief that Hill framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder, after he (or one of his fellow conspirators from the DPD) obtained the revolver used to kill Tippit from Tippit’s real murderer. Let’s begin by discussing Hill’s presence on the sixth floor of the TSBD; where Dallas deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney discovered spent shell casings from a rifle. Although the commonly accepted belief is that Gerald Hill was present on the sixth floor when Mooney discovered the spent shell casings, as this writer hopes to demonstrate below, Hill was actually on the sixth floor before Mooney ever got there.

    Hill and the Texas School Book Depository

    Shortly following Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater, Hill was interviewed by Bob Whitten of KCRA radio in Sacramento, California. According to Dale Myers, this was at about 2:30 pm (With Malice, Chapter 8). Hill told Whitten that “The first call that I got was that the President had been shot and that the shot had come from the Texas School Book Depository. They sent me down there” (WCD 1210, page 3). When Hill testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, he explained that he heard whom he felt certain was DPD inspector J. Herbert Sawyer state that the building from which the shots were fired from had been located, and for help to be sent (WC Volume VII, pages 44 and 45). The transcripts of channel two of the DPD radio reveal that Sawyer requested help between 12:41 pm and 12:43 pm (WCE 705/1974). Hill went on to tell the Warren Commission that after he heard Sawyer’s broadcast, he “…went back to the personnel office and told [Captain W.R. Westbrook] that inspector Sawyer requested assistance at Elm and Houston Streets. The Captain said, ‘Go ahead and go.’ And he turned to another man in the office named Joe Fields and told him to get on down there” (ibid, page 45).

    Captain Westbrook testified before the Warren Commission on April 6, 1964. During his testimony, Westbrook claimed that “I can’t recall whether or not it was the dispatcher’s office, but I think it was – somebody in the dispatchers Office had told us they needed more men at the Texas School Book Depository Building, so I sent the men that were in my Office, which were then Sergeants [Henry] Stringer and Carver, and Possibly Joe Fields and McGee, if they were in there – it seems like McGee was, and I think – I sent them to the building…” (ibid, page 110). Not only did Westbrook neglect to mention sending Hill to the TSBD, he failed to confirm Hill’s claim that he (Hill) had told him that more help was needed at the TSBD. Westbrook also neglected to confirm Hill’s claim when he was interviewed by author Larry Sneed (Sneed, No More Silence, page 313). Although this doesn’t necessarily mean that Hill was lying, given the evidence discussed further on in this essay, he most likely was.

    According to the transcripts of the DPD radio communications, at approximately 12:48 pm, Hill informed the dispatchers on channel one of the Police radio that he and DPD officer Jim M. Valentine were en route to Elm and Houston, code 3; meaning officer Valentine had the lights and siren of his squad car on as they proceeded there (WCE 705/1974). On the day of the assassination, Valentine was assigned squad car 207 (WCE 2645). Jim Ewell, who was a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, was with Hill and Valentine as they proceeded to the assassination scene (WC Volume VII, page 45). In his book on Tippit’s murder, Dale Myers writes that Valentine’s squad car arrived in front of the TSBD at approximately 12:55 pm (With Malice, Chapter 3). In his endnotes, Myers sources this claim to KRLD-TV tape 8, KDFW-TV Collection of the Sixth floor museum at Dealey Plaza.

    Although Hill told the Warren Commission that Valentine’s car “ran into a traffic jam on Elm [Street],” there is no corroboration for this claim by either Officer Valentine or Jim Ewell. In fact, Ewell was quoted in Kent Biffle’s article Eye Witnesses to Tragedy as saying that Valentine “…drove us at break-neck speed to the book depository”, and made no mention of running into a traffic jam on Elm (click here to read Biffle’s article). The reader should also consider that when Ewell was interviewed by Larry Sneed, he told Sneed that Valentine “…drove us back from east to west on the most circuitous route I can recall, and we were back there at the [TSBD] probably in less than two minutes,” and again neglected to mention anything about running into a traffic jam on Elm (Sneed, No More Silence, page 6). Although Ewell’s claim that Valentine drove his squad in a circuitous route tends to confirm Hill’s claim that they did run into a traffic jam; the important point to keep in mind is that Ewell’s recollection places Valentine’s car outside the TSBD sooner than 12:55 pm.

    If Hill informed the DPD dispatchers that he and Valentine were en route to Elm and Houston just as soon as Valentine’s car started to travel out of the DPD basement, then by Ewell’s recollection, it probably arrived outside the TSBD at approximately 12:51 pm. As this writer discusses further on in this essay, there is yet another reason why Myers’ claim that Valentine’s car arrived outside the TSBD at approximately 12:55 pm is not to be trusted. Reader’ should keep in mind that there can be doubt that Hill arrived at the TSBD inside Valentine’s squad car, as film footage shows Hill exiting the car just as it arrives (click here, and go to the 14 minute 50 second mark). The footage reveals that as Hill opens the right front door of the squad car, the number 207 can be seen printed on the door.

    In his aforementioned interview with Bob Whitten, Hill explained that after he arrived at the TSBD, he went into the building with a couple of Dallas county deputy Sheriffs (WCD 1210, page 3). During his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hill claimed that upon his arrival at the TSBD, he first conferred with inspector Sawyer (WC Volume VII, page 45). He then claimed that; “…Captain [Will] Fritz and two or three more detectives from homicide, a boy named Roy Westphal, who works for the special service bureau [of the DPD], and a couple of uniformed officers, and a couple of [Dallas county] deputy sheriffs came up” (ibid). The two homicide detectives who accompanied Captain Fritz to the TSBD (after he was ordered to report there by DPD chief Jesse Curry) were Elmer L. Boyd and Richard M. Sims. In their report concerning their activities on the day of the assassination, Sims and Boyd wrote that they arrived at the TSBD at approximately 12:58 pm (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 4, Item 5). This was confirmed by Lt. T.L. Baker in his own report, and by Sims when he testified before the Warren Commission (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 5, Folder 5, Item 4), (WC Volume VII, page 159).

    When Captain Fritz testified before the Warren Commission, he also confirmed that they arrived outside the TSBD at approximately 12:58 pm (WC Volume IV, page 204). Therefore, if Hill was telling the truth, he conferred with inspector Sawyer for approximately seven minutes prior to entering the TSBD! According to the aforementioned report by Sims and Boyd, they had taken an elevator up the TSBD with Lt. Jack Revill of the DPD special services bureau and Westphal. When Revill testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that he went to the TSBD with Westphal and detectives V.J. Brian and O.J. Tarver (WC Volume V, page 34). During his own testimony before the Warren Commission, Brian confirmed that he went to the TSBD with Revill, Westphal, and Tarver (ibid, page 48). When Westphal was interviewed by author Larry Sneed, he also confirmed that he went to the TSBD with the aforementioned detectives (Sneed, No More Silence, page 327).

    Although Hill never claimed during his testimony before the Warren Commission that Revill, Tarver, and Brian were with Westphal when he allegedly observed Westphal, this doesn’t necessarily mean he was lying when he said he that he had seen Westphal. However, readers should keep in mind that when Revill and Brian testified before the Warren Commission, neither of them mentioned seeing Hill outside the TSBD after they arrived. Hill told the Warren Commission that after he walked into the TSBD, he had gone up the building inside the passenger elevator located at the front of the building (WC Volume VII, pages 45 and 46). Hill also implied during his testimony that he went up the passenger elevator with two Dallas county deputy Sheriffs; one of whom was allegedly Luke Mooney (ibid, page 45). As a matter of fact, during his subsequent interviews with researchers Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed, Hill more or less confirmed that he entered the front of the building with Mooney (Sneed, No More Silence, page 293), (click here to listen to Hill’s interview with Meek). However, this was a lie.

    In his report to Sheriff Bill Decker on November 23, 1963; Mooney wrote that he had taken a freight elevator (which was located at the rear of the TSBD), and that he rode it to the second floor with two female employees of the TSBD (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323). Mooney confirmed this during his testimony before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964 (WC Volume III, pages 283 and 284). Mooney also specifically told the Warren Commission that he entered the building through the rear entrance (ibid). Not only does Mooney’s testimony contradict what Hill stated, but Hill made absolutely no mention of being on the elevator with two female employees when he testified, or during his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed. Hill also told the Warren Commission that he went up the building in the passenger elevator to what he thought was either the fifth or sixth floor, and made no mention of having first stopped on the second floor (WC Volume VII, page 45). This writer should also point out that Hill was unquestionably mistaken about going to either the fifth or sixth floor on the passenger elevator, as it only went up to the fourth floor (WC Volume III, page 272).

    Mooney also wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker (and then verified when he testified before the Warren Commission) that as he proceeded up the rear staircase from the second floor of the TSBD, he first stopped on the sixth floor and then went up to the seventh floor (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323), (WC Volume III, page 284). Hill, on the other hand, implied during his testimony before the Warren Commission that he and Mooney went directly to the seventh floor (WC Volume VII, page 46). During his interview with Larry Sneed, Hill remarked that “…we went up the stairs to the seventh floor because no one had told us that the sixth floor was where the shots were fired from at the time” (Sneed, No More Silence, page 293). Readers should also bear in mind that during his testimony, Counsel David Belin told Hill that when he had spoken to him (Hill) prior to his testimony, he told him that the name of the other Dallas deputy Sheriff who had accompanied him and Mooney into the building was named Boone (WC Volume VII, page 45).

    Belin was undoubtedly referring to Eugene Boone; one of the Dallas county deputy Sheriffs who found the rifle Oswald allegedly used to assassinate the President (WC Volume III, page 293). Hill also implied during his testimony that the second Dallas deputy Sheriff who was allegedly with him also went with him to the seventh floor; after which the spent shell casings were found (WC Volume VII, page 46). However, when Boone testified before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964, he claimed that he went to the sixth floor of the TSBD after Mooney had already discovered the spent shell casings (WC Volume III, page 292). In fact, Boone stated that; “…I didn’t know [Mooney] had found them” (ibid). As pointed out previously, Hill testified on April 8, 1964. Therefore, Belin would probably have known that Boone went to the sixth floor after Mooney discovered the spent shell casings. But even if he didn’t, why would he tell Hill that Boone was the other deputy Sheriff who had accompanied him inside the building?

    In this writer’s opinion, it is entirely feasible that Belin and the Warren Commission knew that Hill was on the sixth floor of the TSBD before Mooney (or anyone else for that matter) got there, and was covering up for Hill’s lie! Hill also told the Warren Commission that when he reached the seventh floor of the building “…there were the two deputy Sheriffs and I and one uniformed Officer up there” (WC Volume VII, page 45). However, during his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed, Hill claimed that detective Roy Westphal was also with him on the seventh floor (Sneed, No More Silence, page 293). Hill’s exact words to Sneed were “…a plain clothes officer named Roy Westphal, a uniformed officer whose name I’ve forgotten, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, and another deputy Sheriff and I all went toward the seventh floor as fast as we could” (ibid).

    Hill went on to tell the Warren Commission that “In the middle of the floor on the seventh floor there was a ladder leading up into an area they called the penthouse, which was used mainly for storage. [Roy] Westphal went up this ladder, I know, and the uniformed officer went up it. The rest of us were checking around the boxes and books” (WC Volume VII, page 46). Although a diagram of the seventh floor in WCD 496 shows that the ladder led up to the roof of the TSBD, as researcher Jerry Dealey explains in the article Giving the Dealey Plaza sewer Troll a ‘Lift’, former DPD Paul Wilkins claimed that the ladder led into an attic. The obvious implication of Hill’s testimony is that Westphal and the “uniformed officer” were the only two who had searched the storage area on the seventh floor when he was there. However, Mooney wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker that after he went to the seventh floor he was “…assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights” (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323).

    He went on to tell the Warren Commission that after he went to the seventh floor he “…approached officers [Sam] Webster and [Billy Joe] Vickery. They were up there in this little old stairway there that leads up into the attic. So we climbed up in there and looked around right quick. We didn’t climb all the way into the attic, almost into it” (WC Volume III, page 284). Although Mooney’s testimony in this regard is somewhat inconsistent with what he wrote in his report (namely that he had crawled into the attic space), the important point to keep in mind is that Mooney contradicted Hill’s claim that Roy Westphal and the “uniformed officer” were the only two who went up the ladder/staircase which led into the attic space. We should also keep in mind that Mooney’s claim that his fellow deputy Sheriffs Sam Webster and Billy Joe Vickery (Victory) were with him on the seventh floor contradicts Hill’s claim that he was only with Mooney and another deputy Sheriff on that floor.

    As for Roy Westphal, when he was interviewed by Larry Sneed, he claimed “…when we went into the [TSBD], our reasoning was to search from the top downward since we didn’t know if the man might still be in the building. As we went up the elevator, I met Sergeant [Don] Flusche, and we were among other officers who got up in the attic looking for the suspect” (Sneed, No More Silence, page 327). At the time of the assassination, Sergeant Flusche was a uniformed DPD officer assigned to the northeast patrol area (WC Volume XIX, Batchelor exhibit 5002). During his own interview with Larry Sneed, Flusche claimed he searched the attic of the TSBD with Roy Westphal and a uniformed officer named W.C. Flowers; and that this was evidently after both the spent shell casings and the rifle had been discovered on the sixth floor (Sneed, No More Silence, pages 457 and 458).

    Flusche told Sneed that “We conducted a pretty thorough search of the sixth floor and then went up into the attic of [the TSBD], which was also the seventh floor. There was some thought that the scuttle hole was open up there, and for some reason the manager or somebody in that building thought that was strange, so [Roy] Westphal, [W.C.] Flowers, and I conducted that search” (ibid). Flusche then added; “There was nothing there at all, but it was real strange that, with all these federal people and other folks that were standing around, we were the only three that would go up [into the attic]” (ibid). The “federal people” to whom Flusche was referring to were probably the ATF agents who had entered the TSBD following the assassination. Several researchers also believe that the “officers” Luke Mooney claimed he encountered whilst ascending the stairs to the sixth floor (and who he believed were deputy Sheriffs), were in fact ATF agents (WC Volume III, page 284).

    Although Flusche recalled that he, Westphal, and Flowers had conducted the search of the attic area whilst other Officers were present, consider that Flusche also (more or less) told Sneed that Captain Will Fritz and Lt. John Carl Day were not present on the sixth floor when DPD Officer Paul Wilkins pointed out the location of the rifle which was discovered on that floor (Sneed, No More Silence, pages 458). However, Lt. Day indicated during his testimony before the Warren Commission that he was on the sixth floor before the rifle had been discovered (WC Volume IV, page 253). Furthermore, Westphal told Sneed that they had searched the attic before the rifle had been found (Sneed, No More Silence, page 328). It is therefore apparent to this writer that Flusche’s recollection was most likely in error. Nevertheless, both Westphal and Flusche claimed that they were not the only two officers who had searched the attic, and that Hill was lying when he told the Warren Commission that only one “uniformed officer” went up the ladder into the attic space with Westphal.

    But then how could Hill have known that Westphal went up the ladder and searched the attic? Consider that in his report to DPD captain W.P. Gannaway (dated March 5, 1963) concerning the whereabouts of former DPD officer Harry N. Olsen, Westphal listed Hill as the source of information pertaining to Olsen’s whereabouts (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 18, Folder 9, Item 17). Since it is evident that Hill was acquainted with Westphal prior to his Warren Commission testimony, he could easily have learned from Westphal after speaking to him that he (Westphal) went up the ladder into the attic. Suffice it say, Hill’s claim that only one uniformed officer went up the ladder with Westphal was contradicted by both Westphal and Flusche; with the implication being that Hill was merely guessing when he testified that only one uniformed officer went up the ladder as he didn’t witness this for himself.

    Hill told the Warren Commission that after he and the two deputy Sheriffs went down to the sixth floor, one of them yelled out “here it is” (or words to that effect), after the spent shell casings had been discovered (WC Volume VII, page 46). However, in his report to Sheriff Decker, Mooney indicated that he was by himself when he went down to the sixth floor (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323). During his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mooney explained that he went down to the sixth floor ahead of deputy Sheriffs Sam Webster and Billy Joe Vickery (Victory), and that they came down behind him. Although Mooney told Sneed during his interview with him that he was alone when he went up to the seventh floor, the important point to keep in mind is that he again neglected to claim that he was with one other deputy Sheriff when he went down to the sixth floor (Sneed, No More Silence, page 226).

    Hill then told the Warren Commission that he “…asked the deputy Sheriff to guard the scene”, and then shouted down to the street from an open window for the DPD crime lab to be sent up to the sixth floor (WC Volume VII, page 46). A photograph taken by Dallas Times Herald photographer Darryl Heikes, and a photograph taken by Dallas Times Herald staff photographer William Allen, show Hill leaning out of the first window to the west of the so-called sniper’s nest window on the Sixth floor of the TSBD (click here to view the photograph taken by Allen). Two photographs taken by freelance photographer Jim Murray also show Hill leaning out of the aforementioned window (click here to view those photographs). The problem with Hill’s claim is that there is no corroboration from anyone who claimed to be on the sixth floor at the same time Luke Mooney discovered the spent shell casings that Hill shouted down to the ground for the DPD crime lab to be sent up.

    As a matter of fact, Mooney wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker (and then verified during his testimony before the Warren Commission) that after he discovered the spent shell casings, he leaned out of the same window from where the shots were allegedly fired, and yelled down to Decker and Captain Fritz for the crime lab to be sent up (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323), (WC Volume III, pages 284 and 285). Hill never mentioned during his testimony or during his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed that Mooney yelled out of the window for the crime lab to be sent up. Although there are no known photographs which show Mooney leaning out of the sixth floor window, Allan Sweatt, the chief criminal deputy for the Dallas Sheriff’s office, wrote in his own report to Sheriff Decker that Mooney “…stuck his head out of the 5th floor window and the Northeast corner of the building [TSBD] and stated he had found some spent cartridge cases…” (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323).

    Hill and the Discovery of the Shell Casings

    Despite being mistaken about which floor (and corner) of the TSBD Mooney was on when he stuck his head out of the window, the fact remains that Sweatt confirmed that Mooney called down to the street following the discovery of the spent shell casings. Readers should also keep in mind that deputy Sheriff Ralph Walters also wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker that Mooney had leaned out of the window that the spent shell casings were found (ibid). Although Walters claimed that he was on the sixth floor of the TSBD with Mooney when Mooney found the spent shell casings, this writer should point out that Mooney never mentioned that Walters was with him when he made the discovery. Whilst some might argue that since none of the photographs showing Hill leaning out of the window shows Mooney also leaning out of the window, somehow proves that Hill was on the sixth floor prior to Mooney, it is entirely feasible (although not likely in this writer’s opinion) that if Hill leaned out of the window after Mooney, all three of aforementioned the photographers only managed to photograph him.

    Whilst others might argue that there would be no reason for Hill to lean out of the window and yell down to the street for the crime lab to be sent up after Mooney had done so, it is entirely feasible that Hill was concerned that no one had heard Mooney. Hill also told the Warren Commission that; “Not knowing or not getting any indication from the street that they heard me, I asked the deputies again to guard the scene and I would go down and make sure that the crime lab was en route” (WC Volume VII, pages 46 and 47). The problem is that neither Mooney nor any other deputy sheriff (or any DPD officer for that matter claimed that they were asked by Hill) to guard the scene. In fact, Dallas deputy sheriff Harry Weatherford wrote in his report to Sheriff Bill Decker that it was he (Weatherford) who asked Mooney to “…preserve the scene for the crime lab” (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323). Weatherford also wrote in his report that he was searching the sixth floor as Mooney found the spent shell casings (ibid).

    Hill’s statements during his testimony also imply that he was alone with Mooney and the other deputy sheriff when Mooney discovered the spent shell casings; and was also alone with the two deputy sheriffs when he (Hill) yelled down to the street from the window for the crime lab to be sent up. On the contrary, Mooney wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker that after he yelled out of the window, deputy Sheriffs Sam Webster, Billy Joe Vickery/Victory, and A.D. McCurley went to where Mooney had discovered the spent shell casings and guarded that spot until the DPD crime lab officers arrived (ibid). During his testimony, Mooney confirmed that after he called down to the street; “…Officers Vickery and Webster, they came across and later on several other deputies -I believe Officers McCurley, A.D. McCurley, I believe he came over” (WC Volume III, page 285). Although there doesn’t appear to be any report by either Webster and Victory/Vickery, in his own report to Sheriff Decker, McCurley wrote that he was on the sixth floor when Mooney “hollered” that he had found the spent shell casings (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323).

    The significance of the above statements is that there were more than two Deputy Sheriffs on the sixth floor of the TSBD when Mooney discovered the spent shell casings. This writer should also point out that during his interview with Larry Sneed, Hill claimed that after Mooney discovered the spent shell casings; “I told all the other officers that were [on the sixth floor] not to touch anything and that we needed to get the crime lab” (Sneed, No More Silence, page 294). Although Hill’s claim implies that there were actually more than two deputy sheriffs (and perhaps even DPD officers) on the sixth floor at the time the spent shell casings were found by Mooney, he most likely said this to Sneed after learning that there were actually more than two deputy Sheriffs on the sixth floor when Mooney found the spent shell casings. Readers should keep in mind that there is no confirmation from anyone that Hill told the other deputies/officers who were present on the sixth floor following Mooney’s discovery not to touch anything.

    Hill also told the Warren Commission that after he allegedly got to the back of the TSBD to go down to the ground and “…make sure the [DPD] crime lab was en route”, Captain Fritz and his men were coming up on the elevator, and that he informed Fritz about the discovery of the spent shell casings and that he was going to make sure the crime lab was en route (WC Volume VII, page 47). But this was yet another lie by Hill! When detective Elmer Boyd testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that he was on the seventh floor with detective Richard Sims and Fritz when someone said that the spent shell casings were found on the sixth floor (WC Volume VII, page 121). During his own testimony before the Warren Commission, Sims claimed that Fritz and Boyd were on the seventh floor of the TSBD when someone “called” them to the sixth floor after the spent shell casings had been found (WC Volume VII, page 183).

    Although Boyd and Sims didn’t actually write in their report concerning their activities on the day of the assassination that Fritz was on the seventh floor of the TSBD when “…someone yelled that some empty hulls had been found on the sixth floor”, their report nevertheless does imply that Fritz was with them (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 4, Item 5). It is also perhaps worth keeping in mind that Lt. T.L. Baker also implied in his own report that Fritz was with Sims and Boyd on seventh floor when the spent shell casings were found (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 5, Folder 5, Item 4). As for Fritz, this writer should point out that when he testified before the Warren Commission, he never actually stated that he was on the seventh floor with Sims and Boyd when he was told that the spent shell casings were found. However, his testimony nevertheless implies that he was with Sims and Boyd when he was told about the discovery (WC Volume IV, pages 204 and 205).

    Did Hill Lie about his location?

    The important point to keep in mind is that Fritz never claimed that he was told about the spent shell casings as he was coming up on the elevator. Suffice it to say, there is an utter lack of corroboration for Hill’s claim that he told Fritz about the spent shell casings from Sims, Boyd, and Fritz himself. What all of the evidence discussed so far demonstrates is that Hill told a number of lies, and that there is no confirmation from anyone; except for one DPD detective as far as this writer is aware, that Hill was on the sixth floor at the time the spent shell casings were officially discovered by Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney.

    When detective V.J. Brian testified before the Warren Commission on May 13, 1964, he made the following claim with regards to the discovery of the spent shell casings; “Well, a police sergeant, Jerry Hill, hollered, I was on the opposite side of the sixth floor, hollered that he had, this is where he shot from, and shells were laying there, and I walked from where I was at over to the other corner of the building and looked, and that is about the extent of my investigation there because they called the crime laboratory and everybody else to get down there and they got an officer to guard the place and not let nobody get around and we went on searching the building” (WC Volume V, pages 48 and 49). Although Brian claimed that he was on the sixth floor with Hill when the spent shell casings were discovered, there are problems with his credibility.

    When chief counsel J. Lee Rankin asked Brian what he observed, and how many spent shell casings he had seen, Brian gave the following startling response; “I am going to guess” (ibid, page 49). Evidently perplexed by Brian’s response, Rankin told him; “We don’t want you to guess. If you can tell us your recollection, that is all” (ibid). Brian then proceeded to explain to Rankin that; “Well, the first time I went over there [where the spent shell casings were], I believe I saw two [shells], but I am not sure, but I went back again later and there were three shells there” (ibid). Although this writer believes that there may have been only two spent shell casings discovered on the sixth floor, it is beyond the scope of this essay this discuss this possibility. However, if there were two spent shell casings found on the sixth floor, then Brian (along with his fellow DPD Officers and Dallas deputy Sheriffs) were coerced into claiming that there were three.

    Even if we are to believe that there actually were three spent shell casings discovered on the sixth floor, why did Brian feel the need to tell Rankin that he was going to guess at how many he observed after seeing three of them? One plausible explanation is that Brian actually wasn’t on the sixth floor when (and after) the spent shell casings were discovered. But then why would Brian claim that he heard Gerald Hill holler that the spent shell casings were found? In this writer’s opinion, it was because the DPD had knowledge that Hill wasn’t on the sixth floor when Mooney found the spent shell casings, and was one of the two officers inside DPD squad car 207 outside the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley at approximately 1:00 pm. As this writer explains further on in this essay, the DPD had probably come to suspect that Hill was one of the two officers inside the car after officer Jim M. Valentine claimed that he handed Hill the keys to the car to him after being told by Hill to do so.

    Therefore, Brian may have been coerced by one or more of his superiors in the DPD into claiming that Hill was on the sixth floor when Mooney discovered the spent shell casings. But if this really was the case, the obvious question is why didn’t other DPD officers also claim that Hill was on the sixth floor? Whilst we can speculate why that was the case, the fact remains that the Brian was (apparently) the only DPD Officer who claimed to be on the sixth floor with Hill when the spent shell casings were discovered; and incredibly testified that he was going to guess at how many he had seen. As for how Brain learned that three spent shell casings were (allegedly) found, he could easily have learned this from his fellow officers.

    Furthermore, although Brian never explained whether Hill had “hollered” at the other officers who were present on the sixth floor, or out of a window, readers should keep in mind that Hill never claimed during his testimony before the Warren Commission (or during his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed) that he had hollered at the other officers who were allegedly on the sixth floor with him that the spent shell casings were found. Suffice it to say, it is this writer’s belief that Brain is not to be considered a credible witness, and inadvertently claimed that he was going to guess how many spent shell casings were found as he was under pressure from lying under oath. Let’s now look into the issue of what time Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney discovered the spent shell casings.

    According to Dale Myers, Mooney and the DPD found the spent shell casings at 12:58 pm (click here to view Myers’ timetable of the events following the assassination). However, there is a huge problem with this theory. First of all, as stated previously in this essay, Mooney told the Warren Commission that after he discovered the spent shell casings he leaned out of the same window from where the shots were fired, and yelled down to the ground for the crime lab to be sent up. As this writer has also stated previously, Captain Fritz and detectives Sims and Boyd arrived at Dealey Plaza at about 12:58 pm, and that at the time Mooney discovered the spent shell casings, they were on the seventh floor of the TSBD. Mooney on the other hand wrote in his report to Sheriff Decker (and then verified during his testimony before the Warren Commission) that he observed Captain Fritz and Sheriff Decker standing outside the TSBD when he leaned out of the window (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323), (WC Volume III, page 284).

    Aside from the fact that Fritz was on the seventh floor when he was advised that the spent shell casings were discovered, there are several other problems with Mooney’s claim that Fritz and Decker were both outside the TSBD at the time he leaned out of the window. First of all, in his own (undated) report concerning his activities following the assassination, Sheriff Decker made no mention of seeing or hearing Mooney as he leaned out of the window, claiming instead that he was informed of Mooney’s discovery after he had spoken to his chief criminal deputy, Allan Sweatt (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323). Sweatt confirmed in his own report to Decker that he had spoken to him after he observed Mooney lean out of the window, and made no mention of Decker standing near him at the time Mooney leaned out of the window.

    In their aforementioned report concerning their activities on the day of the assassination, detectives Elmer Boyd and Richard Sims wrote that Sheriff Decker went from Parkland hospital to the TSBD with them and Captain Fritz in their car following the assassination (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 4, Item 5). Both Sims and Boyd verified this when they testified before the Warren Commission (WC Volume VII, pages 121 and 159). Although Decker didn’t mention in his report that he had gone to the TSBD from Parkland hospital with Fritz, he nevertheless wrote that their inside a car belonging to the homicide division of the DPD (WC Volume XIX, Decker exhibit 5323). In fact, Decker wrote in his report that Fritz arrived outside the TSBD after he did (ibid). But if this were true, then Mooney would have discovered the spent shell casings before 12:58 pm; which, as this writer explains below, is an absurd belief.

    Given the fact that Decker was approximately 66 years old at the time of the assassination, it is entirely possible that he had simply forgotten that he had gone to the TSBD with Fritz (WC Volume XII, page 43). As for Mooney, it is apparent that he was mistaken (or perhaps lying) when he claimed that Fritz and Decker were standing outside the TSBD when he leaned out of the window. The reader should keep in mind that Hill told the Warren Commission that after arriving at the TSBD and conferring with inspector Sawyer “…Captain [Will] Fritz and two or three more detectives from homicide, a boy named Roy Westphal, who works for the special service bureau [of the DPD], and a couple of uniformed officers, and a couple of [Dallas county] deputy sheriffs came up” (WC Volume VII, page 45).

    When was Hill on the Sixth Floor?

    Since Captain Fritz arrived outside the TSBD at about 12:58 pm, Hill’s testimony places him (Hill) outside the TSBD at that time. So if Mooney really did find the spent shell casings at 12:58 pm as Myers postulates, then Hill either lied about being on the sixth floor with Mooney, or he lied about being outside the TSBD with Fritz at about 12:58 pm. The only other alternative explanation is that Hill was on the sixth floor of the TSBD after Mooney discovered the spent shell casings. However, if this truly was the case, this writer is at a loss to explain why Hill would lie under oath before the Warren Commission that he was on the sixth floor with Mooney when he found the spent shell casings. Moreover, as discussed throughout this essay, Hill was outside the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley at approximately 1:00 pm, and therefore, he couldn’t have been on the sixth floor of the TSBD after 12:58 pm.

    According to the transcript of the recordings of channel one of the DPD radio (dubbed Sawyer exhibit B), at approximately 1:12 pm, inspector Sawyer informed the Police dispatchers that “We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor [of the TSBD]…” (WC Volume XXI, Sawyer EX B). But according to the following two transcripts, the transmission from Sawyer at approximately 1:11 pm reads; “On the 3rd floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls…” (WCE 705/1974). Hill informed the Warren Commission that after he allegedly told Captain Fritz about the discovery of the spent shell casings, he went outside and advised inspector Sawyer of the discovery (WC Volume VII, page 47). Hill also took credit for advising Lt. John Carl Day of the DPD crime lab that the shots had been fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD (ibid). But this was another demonstrable lie by Hill.

    When Lt. Day testified before the Warren Commission on April 22, 1964, he claimed that it was inspector Sawyer who directed him to the sixth floor of the TSBD (WC Volume IV, page 249). Another problem with Hill’s claim is that he testified that he told Lt. Day about the spent shell casings before he told Sawyer (WC Volume VII, page 47). When detective Robert Studebaker (who arrived at the TSBD with Day) testified before the Warren Commission on April 6, 1964, he claimed that they arrived at the TSBD at about 1:15 pm (ibid, page 138). Studebaker also claimed that the spent shell casings weren’t found yet when they arrived on the sixth floor; even though he stated that they were directed to the sixth floor upon there arrival (ibid, page 139). However, in his report to deputy DPD chief George L. Lumpkin on January 8, 1964, Lt. Day wrote that he arrived at the TSBD with Studebaker at 1:12 pm, and verified that they arrived there at “about” 1:12 pm (WCE 3145), (WC Volume IV, page 249).

    Lt. Day also wrote in his report (and verified during his testimony before the Warren Commission) that the spent shell casings had been found upon their arrival on the sixth floor (ibid). Even if Day and Studebaker had arrived at the TSBD closer to 1:15 pm than 1:12 pm, the transcripts of channel two of the DPD radio show that the spent shell casings were found prior to their arrival. As for inspector Sawyer, when he testified before the Warren Commission, he failed to confirm that it was Hill who told him about the discovery of the spent shell casings. According to Sawyer; “somebody inside the building” reported the discovery to him (WC Volume VI, page 322). Unfortunately, Sawyer didn’t clarify whether he meant that it was reported to him by an officer/deputy Sheriff who came out of the building and told him, or if it was by an officer/deputy Sheriff who leaned out of a window and yelled down to the street. In the writer’s opinion, by stating that it was “reported” to him, Sawyer was implying that it was the former.

    Even if we are to believe that Mooney discovered the spent shell casings at 12:58 pm, and that it was indeed Hill who informed Sawyer about it after he went outside the building, we must also believe that it somehow took Hill about thirteen minutes for him to go to the window and shout down to the street for the crime lab to be sent up after seeing the spent shell casings for himself, head towards the back of the building and inform Captain Fritz about the discovery, then head outside and inform Lt. Day and inspector Sawyer about the discovery, and for Sawyer to then inform the DPD dispatchers about it. Keep in mind that according to Hill’s own testimony (and his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed), there wasn’t any lengthy delay in his going down and out of the TSBD to inform Sawyer about the discovery (WC Volume VII, pages 46 and 47), (Sneed, No More Silence, page 294). This writer should point out that news reporter Jim Ewell told Larry Sneed that when Hill leaned out of the window “…he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box,” and that Hill was explaining to everyone on the ground that the assassin had been eating fried chicken (ibid, pages 6 and 7).

    Consider that if Hill really was concerned about whether anybody down on the street heard him shout out that the crime lab should be sent up, then he naturally wouldn’t have taken his time to head down and out of the building. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it took Hill two minutes to go to the window to yell down to the street after hearing Mooney yell out that he found the spent shell casings (and after finding what was thought to be the assassin’s lunch), one minute yelling down to the street for the crime lab to be sent up, one minute to then head to the back of the building and inform Fritz about it, then three minutes to reach the front entrance of the building, how do we account for the remaining six minutes? Are we to honestly believe that Hill would waste time lingering inside the building when he was allegedly concerned that nobody heard him shout out that the crime lab should be sent up? Are we also to honestly believe that if, for example, Sawyer was conferring with another officer(s), that Hill would wait a while before interrupting to tell him about this important discovery?

    Finally, are we to honestly believe that after Hill allegedly informed Sawyer about the discovery that Sawyer would actually wait for over a minute before informing the dispatchers? In this writer’s opinion, none of these explanations are viable. What’s even less viable (and in this writer’s opinion, absurd) is that if Mooney discovered the spent shell casings prior to 12:58 pm, it took Hill even longer to inform Sawyer of the discovery! Readers should keep in mind that according to Donald Willis, in two emails to researcher Tony Pitman, WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea (who filmed DPD officers and Dallas county deputy Sheriffs as they searched the sixth floor of the TSBD) claimed that the spent shell casings were discovered at 12:55 pm (click here). Partial confirmation for Alyea’s claim comes from this list of photographs taken in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination, in which it is stated that at approximately 12:55 pm, a photograph captured by William Allen of the Dallas Times Herald shows; “Sheriff [is] waving out of sixth floor window [of the TSBD] next to ‘the’ window.”

    Also according to the list, at approximately 12:55 pm, freelance photographer Jim Murray captured two photographs showing a “Policeman on [the] 6th floor [of the TSBD] yelling out window and & pointing to 6th floor window.” There can be very little doubt that the photographs in question are the photographs showing Gerald Hill yelling out of the window next to the so-called sniper’s nest window; which this writer provided links to above. This writer should also point out that according to the aforementioned list of photographs, it is stated that Sheriff Decker was photographed in Dealey Plaza as early as 12:39 pm. However, a search through Robin Unger’s excellent collection of the various photographs taken in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination reveals that the man believed to be Decker was in fact Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers; who bore a resemblance to Decker.

    Hill and Alyea

    When Luke Mooney testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that as he went down to the sixth floor; “some news reporter, or press, I don’t know who he was – he was coming up with a camera” (WC Volume III, page 284). As Alyea was the only cameraman who took film footage of the sixth floor as it was being searched, there can be no doubt that Mooney was referring to him. This writer should point out that Hill made no mention of seeing any cameraman on the sixth floor when he testified before the Warren Commission and during his subsequent interviews with Jeff Meek and Larry Sneed. Although Mooney’s testimony seems to suggest that Alyea first learned of the discovery of the spent shell casings when he was on the sixth floor of the TSBD, he made no mention of this during a filmed interview in 1964 (click here to view the interview). As a matter of fact, the evidence discussed in this essay shows that this wasn’t the case, and that he probably first learned about it after seeing and/or hearing Hill yell down from the sixth floor window.

    But if this was the case, Alyea didn’t mention this during his aforementioned interview. According to the transcripts of channel one of the DPD radio communications, between 12:55 pm and 1:04 pm, Sgt. David V. Harkness told the Police dispatchers to send the crime lab to the TSBD (WC Volume XXI, Sawyer Exhibit No. A), (WCE 705/1974). Whilst there is no way for this writer to be certain, it is nevertheless this writer’s estimation that Harkness made his transmission between 12:58 pm and 12:59 pm. If Hill yelled out of the window at approximately 12:55 pm (taking no more than a minute to do so), took two minutes to arrive outside the building after leaving the window, then took a minute to inform Harkness (or an Officer who informed Harkness) about the “discovery” of the spent shell casings, then Harkness could easily have made his transmission between 12:58 pm and 12:59 pm. Readers should note that Hill was filmed speaking to news reporters outside the TSBD (this can be viewed here at about the 2 hour 21 minute mark).

    In the essay entitled The Gun That Didn’t Smoke, Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew write that a shadow cast on the bricks to the west of a window on the southeast corner of the TSBD (seen in a photograph taken by Jim Murray) shows that Hill leaned out of the window at 1:03 pm (click here to read the essay). Whilst the author’s seem certain that this was the case, if Luke Mooney discovered the spent shell casings at 12:58 pm or before, and if Harkness’ aforementioned transmission was due to Mooney leaning out of the window, we must believe that Hill (who was allegedly concerned about making sure the crime lab was sent up following the discovery of the spent shell casings) either took five minutes to open the window and yell down to the street, or took well over a minute trying to get the attention of his fellow Officers in the noisy and crowded street below. Keep in mind that Hill never claimed that there was a delay in his opening the window, and then leaving the building.

    In his book Pictures of the Pain, Richard Trask explains that ” [William Allen and Jim Murray] took photos of cops toting shotguns on Houston Street looking up at the building, and of Sergeant Hill motioning out of a sixth-floor window shortly before 1:05 pm. when the [spent] shell casings were discovered” (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, page 546). Trask also writes that “… two frames [from Jim Murray’s camera show] Sergeant Gerald Hill yelling out of a sixth floor window at around 1:00 just after spent shells had been located under the corner window to which he is pointing” (ibid, page 502). Trask appears to be implying that Hill yelled out of the window closer to 1:05 pm than 12:55 pm. However, given his commitment to the belief that Oswald (acting alone) assassinated the President and then shot Officer Tippit, readers are cautioned against believing Trask, as he undoubtedly wouldn’t want his readers to think that Hill could have been one of the two officers outside “Oswald’s” rooming house inside the DPD squad car seen by Earlene Roberts at approximately 1:00 pm, and that by implication, was involved in Tippit’s murder with Oswald.

    As this writer has discussed above, Sheriff Decker (most likely) arrived at the TSBD at about 12:58 pm. In his November 23, 1963, report concerning his activities on the day of the assassination, Mooney wrote that as he was searching the railroad yards “…Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Victory to surround the [TSBD] building” after which he entered the building (WC Volume XIX, Decker Exhibit No. 5323). This would mean that Mooney was on the sixth floor of the TSBD sometime after 12:58 pm. When Mooney testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that “another officer” told him that Decker wanted the TSBD to be covered, and that this was after he had been in the railroad yards for “…only a few seconds” (WC Volume III, page 283). Mooney didn’t specify how long he had been searching the railroad yards prior to being instructed to “surround” the TSBD.

    Despite his latter claim when he testified before the Warren Commission four months after he wrote his report, Mooney (more or less) claimed that Sheriff Decker had spoken to him in person. It is also entirely possible that Mooney had simply misremembered how long he had been searching the railroad yards prior to entering the TSBD. Although Decker never mentioned in his own report that he had spoken to Mooney, Webster, or Victory/Vickery following his arrival at the TSBD, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t. But could Mooney have been referring to deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, who resembled Decker? Whilst this is possible, it is nevertheless unlikely that Mooney could have mistaken Walthers for his own Sheriff. Secondly, Walthers never claimed in his own report to Decker (or when he testified before the Warren Commission) that he had relayed instructions to his fellow officers to cover/surround the TSBD (WC Volume XIX, Decker Exhibit No. 5323), (WC Volume VII, page 546).

    It is also important to keep in mind that in their report concerning their activities on the day of the assassination, detectives Sims and Boyd wrote that the spent shell casings were found at “about 1:15 pm,” and that “Deputy Sheriff Luke E. Mooney said he found them and left them lay as they were” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 4, Item 5). Similarly, detective B.L. Senkel wrote in his own report that he “…got to the sixth floor [of the TSBD] about 1:10 pm,” and that “The empty hulls were found at [the] window about 1:15 pm” (ibid, Folder 12, Item 1). Mooney told the Warren Commission that “…it was approaching 1 o’clock. It could have been 1 o’clock” when he found the spent shell casings, but acknowledged that he didn’t look at his watch to determine the time (WC Volume III, page 285).

    As pointed out previously, the transcripts of channel two of the DPD radio recordings show that inspector sawyer reported over the radio that the spent shell casings were found at approximately 1:11 pm. Given all of the evidence discussed above, it is apparent to this writer that Mooney’s discovery of the spent shell casings was responsible for Sawyer’s transmission. If it took the officer who reported the discovery to Sawyer approximately two minutes from the time he left the sixth floor to the time he spoke to Sawyer, then Mooney found the spent shell casings at approximately 1:09 pm. Suffice it to say, aside from one DPD detective who is not a credible witness, there is an utter lack of support for Hill’s claim that he was on the sixth floor at the time Mooney found the spent shell casings. On a final note, Steve Pieringer, a Fort Worth News reporter, reported the following from outside the TSBD: “Jerry Hill of the Dallas Police department just yelled out a window… Apparently they’ve found some shells there in that room in the Texas School book depository building” (see When The News Went Live in Google books).

    There can be no doubt that Pieringer reported this, as film footage (which can be viewed here) confirms that he did. As for Pieringer’s claim that others were with Hill when he yelled out of the window, this may have been an assumption on Pieringer’s part. Alternatively, Hill may have yelled out words to the effect “We have found empty shells on this floor.” It is this writer’s belief that the purpose of Hill yelling out of the window was to ensure that there would be witnesses to the fact that he was on the sixth floor when the discovery of the spent shell casings was allegedly made, and that he wasn’t outside the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley in DPD squad car 207. If Hill framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder, then it stands to reason that he was also involved in President Kennedy’s assassination, and that by all likelihood, he would have known in advance from which floor of the TSBD the shots would have been fired at the President. As for Hill’s claim that he and a deputy Sheriff found the spent shell casings during his interview with Bob Whitten, he could easily have learned from one or more DPD Officers at Police headquarters prior to his interview with Whitten that Mooney had discovered the spent shell casings (WCD 1210, page 3).

    According to Google Maps, if Hill left the TSBD at approximately 12:58 pm, and travelled to the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley via Commerce Street; by this writer’s calculation, at an average speed of 50 mph, Hill could have arrived there at approximately 1:01 pm. Hill told the Warren Commission that he travelled to the Tippit murder scene with Sgt. Calvin “Bud” Owens, and assistant Dallas district attorney, William F. Alexander (WC Volume VII, page 47). Although Alexander verified that this was the case, and although the recordings of the DPD radio communications (available on John McAdams’ website here) show that Hill was using Owens’ radio identification number when speaking over the radio, as I will explain in detail on my blog, this was a fabrication by the DPD to cover-up for Hill’s presence outside the rooming house. I will also discuss Hill’s activities (and demonstrable lies) from the time he left the TSBD, to the time he arrived at the Texas Theater (click here to read through my discussion of Earlene Roberts’ credibility).

    The Framing of Oswald inside the Theater

    We now come to the main crux of the essay: The framing of Oswald inside the Theater by Hill. As far as this writer is aware, the first two researchers who made the case that Hill was guilty of framing Oswald were Lee Farley and Duke Lane. Before reading what follows, readers are encouraged to first read through this writer’s discussion of the notion that Oswald tried to shoot Officer Nick McDonald using the revolver (WCE 143) he allegedly used to kill Tippit (see under the subheading VI: Closing in, in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice). As this writer explains, the notion that Oswald tried to shoot McDonald was a fabrication by the DPD in order to portray Oswald as a desperate man who had just murdered Tippit in cold blood, and was willing to murder another police officer to avoid being arrested. This writer also discussed the allegation that Oswald purchased the gun via mail order.

    The official story is that after Officer McDonald disarmed Oswald, detective Bob Carroll took “Oswald’s” gun and stuck it into his belt before leaving the Theater. After Oswald was placed into the unmarked DPD car assigned to detective Carroll and his partner Kenneth Lyon, Carroll allegedly handed the gun to Gerald Hill, who was sitting to Carroll’s right in the front of the car. Following their arrival at DPD headquarters, Hill relinquished possession of the gun to Lieutenant T.L. Baker of the homicide and robbery bureau. There can be absolutely no doubt that Hill had possession of the gun following Oswald’s arrest, as he was filmed showing it to news reporters shortly following their arrival at DPD headquarters (this can be viewed here at about the 2 hour 24 minute mark). Hill was also photographed inside the Theater during Oswald’s arrest; and identified himself in that photograph when he testified before the Warren Commission (WC Volume VII, page 50). What follows is an in depth discussion of the likelihood that Hill had possession of “Oswald’s” revolver prior to his arrival at the Theater.

    According to Dale Myers, Bob Carroll was photographed outside the Texas Theater (by Stuart L. Reed) holding onto “Oswald’s” revolver with his right hand (With Malice, Chapter 6). But what Myers doesn’t tell his readers is that Carroll claimed that he placed “Oswald’s” gun inside his belt before exiting the Theater. In his December 4, 1963, report to DPD Chief Jesse Curry concerning Oswald’s arrest, Carroll wrote; “…I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction. I grabbed the pistol and stuck it in my belt and then continued to assist in the subduing of Oswald. After Oswald was handcuffed we were instructed by Captain W.R. Westbrook to take him directly to the City Hall. We [then] removed Oswald from the theatre” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 12).

    When Carroll testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1964, he confirmed that he placed “Oswald’s” gun into his belt prior to leaving the theater. Carroll told Counsel Joseph Ball; “I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it in my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald” (WC Volume VII, page 20). Further on during his testimony, Carroll claimed that “After I took the pistol, I stuck it in my belt immediately” (ibid, page 22). When Carroll was called back to testify on April 9, 1964, he stated that “The first time I saw [WCE 143], it was pointed in my direction, and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt… At the time, I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald” (ibid, page 24). Carroll then stated that he “…jumped and grabbed the gun… [then] Stuck it in my belt,” and that after leaving the Theater he “…released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill” (ibid, pages 24 and 25).

    Given what Carroll wrote in his report and what he stated during his testimony, the gun he was photographed holding outside the Theater was not “Oswald’s” revolver (the photograph can be viewed here). When one closely examines the photograph showing Carroll holding onto the gun, it is apparent that the barrel of the gun Carroll was holding onto was longer than the barrel of “Oswald’s” gun (this writer returns to the issue of whose gun Carroll was holding further on in this essay). In the meantime, let’s consider all of the evidence which contradicts the notion that Carroll had possession of Oswald’s revolver inside the Theater. In his December 2, 1963, report to Chief Curry concerning Oswald’s arrest, Officer Ray Hawkins wrote the following; “[Oswald] had reached in his belt for a gun, and Officer McDonald was holding his right hand with the gun in it. Officer [Thomas Alexander] Hutson had entered the row behind [Oswald], and grabbed him around the neck and held him up. Sergeant G.L. Hill then took the gun” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 18).

    As the reader can see, Hawkins claimed that it was Hill who took the gun. When Hawkins testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1964, he explained why he thought this was the case. According to Hawkins; “…Oswald and McDonald had both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got [to where they were], a gun was pulled, came out of Oswald’s belt and was pulled across to their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre. Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember, Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, ‘I’ve got the gun,’ and he took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald” (WC Volume VII, page 94). Hawkins then went on to explain that “… [Oswald and McDonald] had gotten back into the seat and Officer Hutson had grabbed Oswald from behind and Officer [Charles] Walker had him by the left arm and the gun went across and McDonald had grabbed him by the right hand and Sergeant Hill grabbed the gun and at this time I handcuffed his left hand” (ibid).

    Bob Carroll testified before the Warren Commission prior to Hawkins on the very same morning. After apparently realising that Hawkins’ testimony contradicted his; in so far as Carroll grabbing the gun was concerned, counsel asked Hawkins if Carroll was involved in the scuffle with Oswald. Hawkins response was; “Well, I’m sure Bob was in there. I couldn’t say where he was exactly or – I do remember Sergeant Hill being there, and I believe he said, ‘I’ve got the gun.’ I think I read an account of where Bob Carroll may have had the gun, but I was under the impression it was Sergeant Hill. I’m sure Bob was there, but I don’t know exactly – It was all happening pretty fast” (ibid). It should be apparent to the reader that Hawkins seemed adamant that it was Hill who had grabbed “Oswald’s” gun after he allegedly pulled it out of his belt. Let’s now look at the evidence which supports Hawkins’ belief.

    In his report to Chief Curry, Carroll wrote that “We put Oswald into [the car] and drove directly to the City Hall. While en route to the City Hall, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 12). During his initial testimony before the Warren Commission, Carroll reiterated that he had handed “Oswald’s” gun to Hill after the car had left the front of the Theatre; “…after we got into the car and pulled out from the theatre over there, I gave [the gun] to Jerry Hill, Sgt. Jerry Hill” (WC Volume VII, page 22). When Carroll was called back to testify before the Warren Commission on April 9, 1964, counsel David Belin asked him whether he had given the gun to Hill before or after he had started the car. Carroll stated that it was after (ibid, page 25). When Belin asked Carroll how far he had driven the car prior to giving the gun to Hill, Carroll replied “I don’t recall exactly how far I had driven,” thus indirectly confirming that he had given the gun to Hill after the car had pulled away from the Theater (ibid).

    On December 5, 1963, Hill wrote his own report to Chief Curry concerning Oswald’s arrest. In his report, Hill claimed that “As Officer [Bob] Carroll started to get into the car, he pulled [out] a snub-nosed revolver from his belt and handed it to me” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23). Hill testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964. During his testimony, Hill stated that “As [Carroll] started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre” (WC Volume VII, page 54). Hill then remarked that “[Carroll] apparently had [the gun] in his belt, and as he started to sit down, he handed it to me. I was already in the car and seated” (ibid). After counsel David Belin asked Hill what transpired inside the car after Carroll had allegedly given “Oswald’s” gun to him, Hill stated “We mostly got the car in motion…” after which he explained to Belin the route which Carroll took after pulling out from in front of the Theater (ibid, page 56).

    As the reader can see, Bob Carroll insisted that he had given the gun to Hill after he had driven the car away from the front of the Theater. Hill, on the other hand, insisted that Carroll had given the gun to him before the car pulled away from the Theater, and as Carroll started to get into the car. It should be obvious to the reader that the recollections of both men cannot be correct. Hill also told the Warren Commission that as Carroll handed him the gun, he asked Carroll if the gun belonged to him (ibid, page 54). But this is absurd, for what possible reason would Hill have for believing that Carroll would pull out his own gun from his belt and hand it over to him following Oswald’s arrest? It is also worth bearing in mind that in his memorandum to DPD Captain W.P. Gannaway on the day of the assassination, Carroll wrote that after he grabbed the gun he “…kept in my possession until I later released it to Jerry Hill,” and made no mention of giving it to him inside the car (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 4, Folder 2, Item 52). .

    When Hill was interviewed by the FBI on June 11, 1964, he stated that “…at the time Oswald was seized in the Texas Theatre he was attempting to pull [his] gun from his clothing” (WCE 2011). As discussed in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, several officers such as Charles Walker and Thomas Hutson claimed that Oswald did pull out the gun. Hill also told the FBI that “[Oswald’s] gun was seized by B.K. Carroll and M.N. McDonald in Hill’s presence and was wrenched away from Oswald and handed to Sergeant Hill” (ibid). Although Hill’s remark doesn’t necessarily contradict his initial claim that Carroll handed him the gun inside the car, in this writer’s opinion, his remark nevertheless implies that he was given the gun whilst he was still inside the Theater.

    When Hill was interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS television in the year 1967, he explained to Barker the events which allegedly transpired inside the Theater with regards to Oswald’s arrest. Hill told Barker that “…as soon as we got the handcuffs on [Oswald] and got him up, [Bob] Carroll was going to be the first man that maneuvered with him, and – and had both hands on Oswald inside the theatre – and was gonna have to have both hands on him, so he handed me the revolver which I struck in my belt, and it made the trip in that position” (the transcript of Hill’s interview with Barker can be read here). Further on during the interview, Hill explained that “…as we got [Oswald] handcuffed, and got him to his feet, and started to move with him, Detective Carroll, Bob Carroll, who’s one – gonna be one of the officers that made the first wing of the point – and was gonna have to move out before I’d do it, and as we started to move, he turned around and handed me this snub-nosed 38… [He] said this was the prisoner’s gun. And I stuck it in my belt, under my coat. And then I put my hands on Oswald, and we started out of the theatre.”

    Note this discrepancy: Hill’s claim that Carroll handed him the revolver whilst they were still inside the Theater contradicts both Carroll’s and Hill’s initial claim that he was given the gun inside the car. During his interview with Jeff Meek in 1976, Hill avoided discussing how and when Carroll allegedly gave him the revolver. However, when Hill was interviewed by Larry Sneed, he claimed that Carroll had handed him the revolver as he got into the car; and verified that this was before they drove away from the front of the Theater (Sneed, No More Silence, page 298). If Hill had simply forgotten when Carroll had given him the revolver by the time Eddie Barker interviewed him in 1967, then it stands to reason that he would have stated he couldn’t remember when it was given to him. The fact is that he never did.

    Readers should also bear in mind that the idea that Hill had simply forgotten when he was given the revolver during his interview with Barker ignores the fact that officer Hawkins stated that it was Hill who had shouted out “I’ve got the gun” during the scuffle with Oswald, and also ignores the fact that his claim that Carroll had given him the gun inside the car before they drove away from the Theater was contradicted by Carroll. This writer should also point out that neither Hill nor Carroll provided an explanation as to why Carroll allegedly handed “Oswald’s” gun to Hill in their reports to Chief Curry or when they testified before the Warren Commission. However, one possible explanation for why Carroll handed Hill the gun was because Hill was his superior, and because he was going to drive the car. The problem is that Carroll’s own claim that he had given Hill the gun after he pulled away from in front of the Theater undermines the latter possibility.

    The Plot Thickens

    Let’s now take into account the following contradictions between the statements of Hill and Carroll. Consider that in his report to Chief Curry, Hill wrote that after Carroll had handed him the gun; “He stated this was the suspect’s gun and that he had obtained it from Officer McDonald immediately after the suspect was subdued” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23). Although it is this writer’s opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Carroll thought at the time that the gun he grabbed belonged to Oswald, Hill’s claim that Carroll told him he had obtained it from McDonald immediately after Oswald was subdued was most certainly a lie. First of all, Carroll never wrote in his report to Chief Curry that he obtained the gun from McDonald; and as pointed out previously, Carroll wrote that he grabbed the gun and placed it into his belt; and then continued to assist in subduing Oswald (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 12).

    Secondly, when Carroll initially testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1964, he was asked if he knew who was holding onto the gun when he grabbed it. Carroll’s response was; “I don’t know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that’s all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald” (WC Volume VII, page 20). When Carroll was called back to testify on April 9, 1964, he was again asked if he knew who had the gun when it was pointed in his direction. Carroll remarked that he didn’t (ibid, page 24). Many years later, during a filmed interview, Carroll proclaimed (in so many words) that the gun he grabbed inside the Theater was in Oswald’s hand (click here to view the interview). But if this truly was the case, Carroll wouldn’t have had any reason to lie to the Warren Commission. Therefore, he either misremembered or lied when he proclaimed during the filmed interview that it was Oswald who had the gun in his hand.

    As for why Carroll didn’t know who was holding onto the gun he grabbed, when Officer Thomas Alexander Hutson testified before the Warren Commission, he admitted that; “The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark,” and that “Visibility was poor” (WC Volume VII, pages 30 and 31). When Captain W.R. Westbrook testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that “…the lights were on very dim [inside the Theater]” (ibid, page 112). The aforementioned photograph showing Hill inside the Theater during Oswald’s arrest confirms that the lighting inside the Theater was poor. In his report to Chief Curry, Hill also wrote that after he heard an Officer (undoubtedly McDonald) shout out “I’ve got him!,” he “…ran inside the lower floor of the theater and saw several officers attempting to restrain [Oswald],” and that “Someone yelled that [Oswald] had a pistol and then as I joined the other officers in attempting to complete the arrest, I heard someone else say they had the gun” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23).

    Hill’s remark implies that heard someone yell out that they had the gun before Oswald was subdued. He then wrote that along with Officers McDonald, Hutson, Hawkins, Walker, Carroll, K.E. Lyon, Paul Bentley, and FBI agent Robert M. Barrett, he had “…succeeded in subduing [Oswald]” and that “…while the other officers held [Oswald], Officer Ray Hawkins and I handcuffed [him]” (ibid). When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that just before he got to where Oswald was, he heard somebody yell “Look out, he’s got a gun,” and that with the assistance of the aforementioned Officers, Oswald was subdued “…to the point where we had control of him and his legs pinned and his arms pinned… And Hawkins and I handcuffed him while the others held him” (WC Volume VII, page 50).

    When Johnny Calvin Brewer, the shoe store manager who allegedly witnessed Oswald duck into the Theater without paying, testified before the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964, he claimed that he heard someone holler “He’s got a gun” (ibid, page 6). Brewer explained that before he heard this, he had seen a gun “…come up and – in Oswald’s hand, a gun up in the air” (ibid). But as discussed in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, this was most certainly a lie (see under the subheading VI: Closing in). Aside from Hill and Brewer, this writer knows of no other officer (or witness) who claimed that they heard someone yell out that Oswald had a gun. This writer is also unaware of any officer/witness who took credit for yelling out that Oswald had a gun. Whilst Brewer and Hill are not credible witnesses, it is nevertheless possible that one of the other officers or witnesses did yell out words to the effect “Look out, he’s got a gun,” for as this writer explains below, Oswald likely grabbed Officer McDonald’s gun out of self-defence.

    What’s of particular significance is Hill’s claim that as he joined the other officers involved in Oswald’s arrest, he allegedly; and “coincidentally,” heard someone say that they had “the gun.” Apart from Hill, the only other two officers who could have shouted out that they had “the gun” were Nick McDonald and Bob Carroll; as they were the only two officers who wrote in their reports to Chief Curry (and then told the Warren Commission) that during the scuffle with Oswald inside the Theater, they had possession of “Oswald’s” revolver. However, as far as this writer is concerned, neither one of them ever proclaimed that they shouted out that they had the gun. It is also important to bear in mind that Hill didn’t identify either one of them as the officer who said they had the gun. On December 3, 1963, detective John B. Toney wrote his own report to Chief Curry on what he allegedly witnessed during the scuffle with Oswald inside the Theater. In his report, Toney explained that he heard one of the Officers state “I have the gun,” but didn’t identify who the Officer was (Dallas Municipal archives Box 2, Folder 7, Item 43).

    Toney went on to explain that after he heard this, Oswald was subdued and then handcuffed (ibid). In his own report to Chief Curry on December 3, 1963 concerning Oswald’s arrest, Captain W.R. Westbrook wrote that as he “…reached the row of seats where the arrest was in progress, several officers were struggling with [Oswald]. Detective Bob Carroll said that he had [Oswald’s] gun. [Oswald] was overpowered and handcuffed” (ibid, Item 50). When Westbrook testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that after he observed Oswald and McDonald fighting “I yelled about three or four times, ‘Has somebody got his gun,’ and finally some officer – I don’t know which one it was – says, ‘Yes, I have the gun’” (WC Volume VII, page 112). Whilst it is entirely conceivable that after grabbing the gun pointing in his direction, Bob Carroll yelled out that he had it, Westbrook’s testimony doesn’t necessarily contradict Officer Hawkins’ claim that it was Hill who said that he had the gun. Although detective Toney’s claim that heard one of the officers state that “I have the gun” is more consistent with Westbrook’s claim than Hawkins’ claim, it is entirely possible that Hawkins (or perhaps Toney) misremembered exactly what was said.

    On a further note, although Westbrook testified that he didn’t know who the officer was that stated “Yes, I have the gun,” it is entirely possible he simply forgot that it was Bob Carroll. This writer should point out that several researchers, such as Ian Griggs, have argued that Westbrook may also have been involved in President Kennedy’s assassination. If this was the case, then it stands to reason that he was also involved in framing Oswald for Tippit’s murder; and may have lied in his report that Carroll stated that he had the gun in order to help conceal the fact that it was actually Hill who said he had the gun. What’s intriguing is that Hill told the FBI that he had transferred to the personnel bureau of the DPD (which was under Westbrook’s command) in October, 1963, the same month in which Oswald obtained his employment at the TSBD (WCD 4, page 308). Although this may be nothing more than a coincidence, it is nevertheless intriguing.

    This writer should also point out that during his interview with Larry Sneed; Westbrook claimed that he had seen Bob Carroll “…reach out and grab [the gun]” (Sneed, No More Silence, page 315). However, since Westbrook made absolutely no mention of this in either his report concerning Oswald’s arrest and when he testified before the Warren Commission, his latter claim to Sneed should be taken with a grain of salt. Although Westbrook’s report implies that Oswald was subdued after Carroll said he had the gun, he may have misremembered exactly when Carroll said he had the gun. Suffice it to say, aside from Captain Westbrook, no other DPD officer wrote/indicated in their report to Chief Curry (or told the Warren Commission) that Carroll said he had the gun after he grabbed it.

    Ironically enough, Hill’s own claim in his report that Carroll told him he obtained the gun from McDonald immediately after Oswald was subdued, contradicts his claim that as he “…joined the officers in attempting to complete the arrest, I heard someone else say they had [Oswald’s] gun,” as this implies that Oswald was subdued after Hill allegedly heard someone say they had the gun. The reader should also bear in mind that during his interview with Bob Whitten shortly following Oswald’s arrest, Hill remarked that after McDonald approached Oswald “…all seven of us got into a fight and finally got him subdued and handcuffed – disarmed then handcuffed” (WCD 1210, page 4).

    The implication of Hill’s remark is that Oswald was disarmed after he was subdued, and that since Carroll wrote in his report to Chief Curry that he continued to assist in subduing Oswald after he grabbed the gun, he couldn’t have been the officer allegedly heard by Hill. In the report he wrote out for Chief Curry on the day of the assassination, Hill explained; “…after a struggle in which [Oswald] resisted violently he was disarmed and handcuffed,” thus implying that Oswald disarmed after he was subdued (WCD 87, 196). Hill also remarked that Oswald was subdued, disarmed, and handcuffed (in that order) during a filmed interview with news reporters on the day of the assassination (this can be viewed here at about the 1 hour and 56 minute mark).

    Let’s now look into the possibility that McDonald may have yelled out that he had Oswald’s gun, as Hill joined the scuffle. In an article written for the Associated Press on the day following the assassination, McDonald took sole credit for disarming Oswald (John Armstrong Baylor research collection, tab entitled: McDonald). McDonald also took sole credit for disarming Oswald in the report he wrote to Chief Curry on December 3, 1963 and when he testified before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964 (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 32.)It stands to reason that McDonald would have said that he had the gun as soon as he disarmed Oswald. Although McDonald implied in his report that he had disarmed Oswald after officers Charles Walker, Thomas Hutson, and Ray Hawkins joined him in the scuffle with Oswald, when he testified before the Warren Commission he claimed that; “By the time all three of these officers [Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins] had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of [Oswald’s] pistol and jerked it free [from his hand]” (ibid).

    McDonald also claimed during his interview with Lloyd Shearer in 1964 that he had disarmed Oswald prior the time Hutson, Walker, and Hawkins and joined him in the scuffle with Oswald (see The Man Who Captured Lee Oswald by Lloyd Shearer). But contrary to McDonald’s claim, Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins all wrote in their reports to Chief Curry (and then verified when they each testified before the Warren Commission) that they joined McDonald in the scuffle before Oswald was allegedly disarmed (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Items 18, 25, and 47). As pointed out previously, Hill wrote in his report to chief Curry that he joined the officers (not officer) who were scuffling with Oswald, and indicated during his testimony before the Warren Commission that McDonald, Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins were scuffling with Oswald before he joined in the scuffle (ibid, page 52).

    Although their accounts on when Hill joined them differ, both Hutson and Hawkins confirmed that it was after they (along with Officer Walker), had reached Oswald and McDonald as they were scuffling (ibid, pages 33 and 94). Therefore, if McDonald’s claim that he disarmed Oswald before Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins reached them is correct, and if Hill was being truthful when he wrote in his report that he heard “someone” say they had “Oswald’s” gun as he joined the scuffle, then McDonald couldn’t have been the Officer whom he allegedly heard make this claim. Furthermore, despite the fact that McDonald took sole credit for disarming Oswald; after which he allegedly handed the revolver to detective Bob Carroll, Officer Walker told the Warren Commission that as Oswald still had the gun in his hand “…a detective, I don’t recall who it was, there were so many [officers] around by that time, the area was bursting with Policemen, and it appeared to me that he reached over and pulled the gun away from everybody, pulled it away from everyone, best I can recall” (ibid, page 40).

    The reader should also consider that according to Officer Hutson; “The gun was taken from [Oswald’s] hand by Officer McDonald and somebody else. I couldn’t say exactly” (ibid, page 32). However, in his December 3, 1963, report to Chief Curry, Hutson wrote that McDonald had disarmed Oswald, and didn’t give credit to any other officer for disarming Oswald (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 25). As this writer has pointed out above, detective Carroll claimed that as he was standing in the south aisle of the Theater, he observed a gun pointing in his direction and grabbed it from whoever had it; and that Officer Hawkins testified that the gun was pulled across towards the south aisle of the Theater, as Oswald was allegedly holding it in his hand. On the contrary, Hutson testified that the gun was pointing towards the screen of the Theater, which was to the east (ibid). Similarly, Walker testified that the gun was “…pointed slightly toward the screen, what I call” (ibid, page 39).

    Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers; who allegedly witnessed Oswald’s arrest inside the Theater, wrote in his report to Sheriff Bill Decker on the day of the assassination that he “…saw Officer Carroll of the Dallas Police Department standing on the other side of the melee of people and I could see a gun on the floor with 2 or 3 hands on it and I reached into this melee and pulled up on the people and I believe it was Officer Carroll who reached down and got this gun. I am not positive it was Officer Carroll, but I believe it was, however, there was such a swarm of officers at this time, it was hard to determine” (WC Volume XIX, Decker Exhibit No. 5323). Although Walthers verified during his Warren Commission testimony that he thought it was Carroll who got the gun “away from the hands,” he omitted that the gun was on the floor when Carroll allegedly reached and grabbed it (WC Volume VII, page 548). However, former Dallas deputy Sheriff Bill Courson told Larry Sneed that Walthers arrived at the Theater after Oswald was arrested (Sneed, No More Silence, page 486).

    On a similar note, former Dallas deputy Sheriff Roger Craig wrote in his manuscript When They Kill a President that Walthers didn’t enter the Theater. On the day of the assassination, FBI agent Robert M. Barrett also wrote a report on what he allegedly witnessed inside the Theater. According to Barrett; “One of the officers took a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver out of Oswald’s right hand and handed it to Detective [Bob] Carroll” (WCD 5, page 85). Further on in his report, Barrett wrote that “Later at Police headquarters… I was told by Officer McDonald that when he first approached Oswald, [he] attempted to pull the weapon from his shirt, at which time McDonald grabbed the gun with both of his hands. McDonald stated that Oswald did pull the trigger once, but that the gun did not fire” (ibid). Whilst Barrett’s account tends to corroborate McDonald’s claim that he disarmed Oswald, the reader should nevertheless bear in mind that nowhere in his report did Barrett state that he actually observed McDonald disarm Oswald and then hand the gun to Bob Carroll; or that he heard either one of them say that they had “Oswald’s” gun.

    If the recollections of Officer Walker and deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers are to be believed, then McDonald didn’t disarm Oswald as he claimed; and therefore, he couldn’t have said that he had Oswald’s gun. If officer Hutson’s recollection is to be believed, then McDonald didn’t disarm Oswald on his own. Officer Hawkins’ recollection is also at odds with McDonald’s; as Hawkins claimed that Oswald had the gun in his hand when it was “pulled across” towards the south aisle of the Theater, whereas McDonald told the associated press on the day following the assassination that he “…got the pistol out of [Oswald’s] hand and another officer, Bob Carroll, reached me and took the pistol from me” (John Armstrong Baylor research collection, tab entitled: McDonald). However, in his report to Chief Curry, McDonald wrote that he “…brought the pistol away still holding the butt and pointing it to the floor at [arm’s] length away from anyone… I recognized Officer Bob Carroll and handed the pistol to him” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 32). When McDonald testified before the Warren Commission, he confirmed that he had given the gun to Carroll (WC Volume III, pages 300 and 301).

    As discussed previously in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, during a filmed interview with WFAA-TV on the day following the assassination, McDonald claimed that after he approached Oswald and ordered him to stand up, Oswald said “This is it.” Such a remark implies that Oswald realized he was caught and was allegedly surrendering himself. But in his report to Chief Curry (and during his testimony before the Warren Commission), McDonald claimed that Oswald said “Well, it’s all over now” after he approached him and ordered him to stand up (see the subheading entitled VI: Closing in in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice). As the two expressions sound nothing alike, it is apparent that McDonald was fabricating. With that in mind, his claim that he had removed WCE 143 from Oswald’s hand should be taken with a grain of salt. Although, as pointed out above, FBI agent Bob Barrett wrote in his report that “someone” took what he described as being WCE 143 out of Oswald’s hand, he also wrote that he heard Oswald yell in a loud voice “Kill all the sons of bitches” (WCD 5, page 84).

    But as also discussed in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, there is absolutely no corroboration for Barrett’s claim that Oswald said this by any of the officers who either participated in or witnessed Oswald’s arrest, or by anyone else who witnessed Oswald’s arrest. It is therefore apparent that Barrett was involved in incriminating Oswald for Tippit’s murder, and therefore, his claim that someone had taken WCE 143 out of Oswald’s hand is not to be believed. Suffice it to say, there is no credible evidence that McDonald disarmed Oswald and then said that he had the gun, or that after Bob Carroll grabbed the gun which was pointing in his direction, he (Carroll) said that he had the gun. It is therefore apparent to this writer that Hill wrote in his report to Chief Curry that he heard someone say that they had the gun as he joined the rest of the officers in the scuffle with Oswald, to try and conceal the fact that he was the officer who said that he had the gun!

    Should the above not be sufficient to convince the reader that Carroll didn’t give WCE 143 to Hill after Oswald was arrested, then the reader should also consider the following evidence. In his report to Chief Curry, Hill wrote that; “I retained [the] gun in my possession until approximately 3:15 pm, Friday, November 22, 1963, when in the presence of Officers Carroll and McDonald, I turned [it] over to Detective T.L. Baker of the Homicide and Robbery bureau” (Dallas Municipal archives Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23). But when Carroll testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1963, he remarked that he didn’t recall “…seeing the gun or the bullets turned over to anyone by Hill” (WC Volume VII, page 23). When Carroll was called back to testify before the Warren Commission on April 9, 1963, he informed Counsel David Belin that he placed the initials B.C. on the inside of the butt of WCE 143 when he was inside the personnel office of the DPD with Hill on the day of the assassination (ibid, page 25).

    However, the reader should bear in mind that not only did Carroll fail to mention that he marked the gun during his initial testimony on April 3, 1963, and in his report to chief Curry, but he also failed to mention that he marked the gun in the memorandum which he wrote to Captain W.P. Gannaway on the day of the assassination! (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 4, Folder 2, Item 52). Whilst this doesn’t necessarily mean that Carroll didn’t mark the gun on the day of the assassination, the lack of mention by Carroll in his memorandum to Captain Gannaway and in his report to Chief Curry that he marked it, nevertheless raises doubt that he did. The reader should also bear in mind that when Officer Ray Hawkins was asked if he observed McDonald mark the gun after he went to the DPD personnel bureau, Hawkins remarked; “Yes, sir; McDonald, and I believe Sergeant Hill marked it or possibly Bob Carroll. There were, I believe, two people who marked it” (WC Volume VII, page 95).

    Hawkins’ belief that Carroll may have marked the gun was probably due to the fact that he thought he “…read an account of where Bob Carroll may have had the gun…” (ibid, page 94). The important point to keep in mind is that he never testified that he had seen Carroll mark the gun. During his testimony before the Warren Commission, Captain Westbrook claimed that after the gun was brought into his Office; “It was marked by Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more…” (ibid, page 118). It is apparent that Westbrook seemed confused as to how many Officers had marked the gun, and never once mentioned that Carroll was one of the Officers. In assessing his credibility, it is also perhaps worth considering that despite seeing the light gray zipper jacket (which Tippit’s killer discarded) laying on the ground in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station on Jefferson Blvd., Westbrook testified that he was “guessing” as to exactly where the jacket was found (ibid, page 117).

    When did Carroll mark the gun?

    As for the other officers who were involved in or witnessed Oswald’s arrest, none of them mentioned in their reports to Chief Curry that they had seen Carroll mark the gun on the day of the assassination (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7). In fact, detectives Paul Bentley, K.E. Lyon, John Toney, E.E. Taylor, Marvin Buhk, Sgt. Henry Stringer, Lt. Elmo Cunningham, Officer E.R. Baggett and others, were never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Although Bentley, Toney, Cunningham, and Captain Westbrook were interviewed by Larry Sneed, none of them mentioned seeing Carroll mark the gun. Though, in his report to Chief Curry on December 3, 1963, detective Bentley remarked that he (Bentley) had “initialled” the gun. Suffice it to say, the evidence discussed previously indicates that Bob Carroll did not have possession of WCE 143 inside the Theater. It is this writer’s belief that Hill (or perhaps even Captain Westbrook) coerced Carroll into claiming that he grabbed WCE 143 during the scuffle with Oswald inside the Theater, and that he then turned it over to Hill inside the car.

    Still, the Officer identified by Dale Myers as Bob Carroll was photographed outside the Theater holding onto what appears to be a revolver in his right hand. As discussed previously, by Carroll’s own claim that he allegedly placed WCE 143 inside his belt before he exited the Theater, the gun he was holding was not WCE 143. But then whose gun was it? Whilst this writer thought that the gun may have been his own, during his aforementioned filmed interview, Carroll stated that after he allegedly got the gun out of Oswald’s hand and placed it into his belt, he then placed his own gun into his holster, after he which he “popped [Oswald] one upside his head”. Although Carroll didn’t specifically mention that he had placed his own gun into his holster whilst he was still inside the Theater; the very next thing he mentioned after placing “Oswald’s” gun into his belt was that he had placed his own gun into his holster. Besides, with Oswald subdued, handcuffed, and then escorted outside the Theater by his fellow Officers, there would have been no need for Carroll to be holding his own gun outside the Theater.

    In this writer’s opinion, the gun Carroll was holding outside the Theater most likely belonged to Officer McDonald. If Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder, then there can be no doubt that he was lured to the Texas Theater. As discussed in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, by all likelihood, Oswald thought that he was to make contact with someone inside the Theater (see under the subheading VI: Closing in). Consider that if Hill framed Oswald, there can be little doubt that Oswald was provoked into starting a fight with the Officer(s) who approached him inside the Theater; to enable Hill to join the scuffle and then pretend that he had taken the gun used to kill Tippit from Oswald’s person. The reader should keep in mind that McDonald told the associated press on the day following the assassination that Oswald “…hit me a pretty good one in the face with his fist” (John Armstrong Baylor research collection, tab entitled: McDonald). Although the accounts by the DPD Officers and witnesses inside the Theater concerning which fist Oswald used to punch McDonald in the face differ, there can be little doubt that Oswald did punch him.

    Since McDonald was the first Officer to approach Oswald inside the Theater, the reader should consider the possibility that it may have been McDonald’s role to provoke Oswald into a fight! Although this writer cannot offer a definitive explanation as to how McDonald might have provoked Oswald, he may have pressed his own gun against him in order to intimidate him into thinking that he was going shoot him, and that out of self-defence, Oswald punched him in the face. It is this writer’s belief that after stunning McDonald with his punch, Oswald grabbed McDonald’s gun and aimed it away from him towards the south aisle of the Theater. For reasons discussed in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, there can be little doubt that Ray Hawkins lied when he told the Warren Commission that Johnny Calvin Brewer pointed out Oswald to him inside the Theater (see under the subheading VI: Closing in). Nevertheless, his claim that the gun was “pulled across…toward the south aisle of the theatre” is consistent with Bob Carroll’s claim that he had seen a gun pointing his direction, as he was standing in the south aisle of Theater (WC Volume VII, pages 20, 24, and 94).

    As this writer has pointed out previously, Hawkins wrote in his report to Chief Curry that Oswald “…had reached in his belt for a gun” and then told the Warren Commission that the gun “came out of Oswald’s belt.” However, he may have only stated this after being told by McDonald (and his fellow Officers) that Oswald had pulled the revolver out of his belt. On the other hand, like his fellow Officers, it’s possible that Hawkins was lying in order to implicate Oswald. Although Hawkins told the Warren Commission that he had seen WCE 143 at the personnel bureau of the DPD following Oswald’s arrest, it is entirely possible that due to the poor lighting conditions inside the Theater at the time of Oswald’s arrest (as discussed above) he was unable to see exactly what it looked like at the time (WC Volume VII, page 95). This writer should also point out that McDonald confirmed Hawkins’ claim that McDonald and Oswald had fallen down into the seats after they started fighting in his report to Chief Curry and when he testified before the Warren Commission (WC Volume III, page 300).

    In assessing whether or not McDonald was involved in provoking Oswald into a fight as part of the frame-up (and whether or not Oswald had grabbed McDonald’s gun after assaulting him), we should also take the following into account. In his article for the associated press on the day following the assassination, McDonald wrote that after Oswald was allegedly pointed out to him by a man sitting near the front row of the Theater, he spoke to two people sitting in about the middle row of seats, and that he was “crouching low” and holding his gun “in case any trouble came” as he allegedly wanted to be ready for it as he approached Oswald (John Armstrong Baylor research collection, tab entitled: McDonald). Curiously, McDonald made no mention of holding onto his gun as he approached Oswald in his report to Chief Curry, or when he testified before the Warren Commission. During a filmed interview with Eddie Barker of CBS in which he demonstrated to Barker how he allegedly disarmed Oswald, McDonald was asked if he had his gun drawn as he was inside the Theater. McDonald’s response was; “No I didn’t” (click here to view the footage).

    McDonald also neglected to mention holding onto his gun during his interview with researcher Jeff Meek. In his own book Oswald And I, McDonald wrote that his gun remained strapped inside his holster as he started walking towards Oswald (McDonald, Oswald And I, Chapter 10). If McDonald did in fact use his gun to provoke Oswald into a fight; and if this was the gun which Bob Carroll removed from Oswald’s hand, then McDonald’s reluctance to mention holding onto it as he approached Oswald in his report, when he testified before the Warren Commission, during his subsequent interviews, and why he then wrote in his own book that his gun remained strapped inside his holster as he approached Oswald is understandable. It is also intriguing that Officer Hawkins told the Warren Commission that after McDonald had approached Oswald, he heard McDonald say “…I’ve got him,’ or ‘This is it,’ or words to that effect” (WC Volume VII, page 93). When asked if he heard Oswald say anything, Hawkins response was “Not at that time; no, sir; I did not” (ibid).

    As mentioned previously, when McDonald was interviewed by WFAA-TV on the day following the assassination, he claimed that Oswald said “This is it” after he approached him, only to claim later on that Oswald actually said “Well, it’s all over now”. We should keep in mind that if McDonald was involved in framing Oswald for the murder of one of his fellow Officers, he undoubtedly would have been feeling nervous, and would have been under quite a bit of stress. With that in mind, could McDonald have inadvertently said “This is it” to Oswald after he approached him, only to claim that it was in fact Oswald who said “This is it” to him out of fear that one or more of his fellow Officers (and witnesses) heard him say this to Oswald?

    Although this writer believes that this is certainly possible, there is a complete lack of corroboration for Hawkins’ belief that it was McDonald who said “This is it” (or words to that effect) after he approached Oswald from any of his fellow Officers and witnesses. However, as pointed out below, there is reason to believe that Hawkins was slightly more honest than his fellow Officers. We should also consider the possibility that perhaps McDonald told Hawkins sometime following Oswald’s arrest that he heard Oswald say “This is it” to him, and that Hawkins was simply confused as to whom he allegedly heard say this (though this writer doubts this possibility). Furthermore, given all of the evidence discussed in this essay, there is good reason to believe that Hill coerced McDonald into claiming that Oswald said “This is it” to him after he approached him. Consider that during his interview with Bob Whitten of KCRA radio on the day of the assassination, Hill told Whitten that “…just as McDonald got to [Oswald] he jumped up and yelled ‘This is it’” (WCD 1210, page 4).

    Hill also claimed that Oswald said “This is it” in the report he wrote to Chief Curry on the day of the assassination (WCD 87, page 196). However, in the report, Hill wrote that Oswald said “This is it” before he got up out of his seat (ibid). When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he was asked if he heard Oswald “…make any statement of any kind”, to which he responded “Not any distinguishable statement that I can specifically recall” and that “Later in the course of trying to piece this thing together for a report, I believe it was McDonald and [Thomas] Hutson that stated, and we put it in the report that way, that the suspect yelled, ‘This is it’” (WC Volume VII, page 51). But contrary to Hill’s claim that Hutson may have told him that Oswald said “This is it”, Hutson made no such claim in his report to Chief Curry, and told the Warren Commission that he didn’t remember anybody say anything (ibid, page 32), (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 25).

    Whilst one might think that Hill had misremembered that Hutson told him that Oswald said “This is it”, when we take into account all of the demonstrable lies told by Hill; and all of the evidence which indicates that he framed Oswald, it should be apparent that Hill was also lying when he claimed that he thought Hutson said Oswald yelled “This is it.” Still, it is intriguing that Hill claimed that he thought Hutson stated that Oswald said “This is it.” It is also intriguing that Hutson told the Warren Commission that after Oswald was disarmed “…Sgt. Jerry Hill came up and assisted as we were handcuffing [Oswald]” (WC Volume VII, page 33). This raises the possibility that Hutson himself may have been involved in framing Oswald. Should one believe that Hutson stated this because the DPD knew that Hill was complicit in framing Oswald, and had coerced Hutson into stating that Hill “came up” after Oswald was disarmed, then there can be no doubt that Officer Hawkins would also have been coerced into concealing Hill’s complicity, and that it is highly unlikely that he would claim that it was Hill who said “I’ve got the gun.”

    Whilst there is absolutely no solid evidence that McDonald was involved in framing Oswald, we should also keep the following in mind. Towards the end of his telephone interview with Hill in the year 1976, Jeff Meek asked Hill if McDonald was still working for the DPD. Hill tried to discourage Meek from interviewing McDonald by telling him that McDonald “…likes to get paid to discuss the thing, I think.” We should also keep in mind that McDonald’s wife, Sally, who was also interviewed by Lloyd Shearer, claimed that after she had heard that a DPD Officer was shot near the Oak Cliff area of Dallas, she spoke to McDonald on the phone. After McDonald told her that he was okay, she apparently wanted to speak to another officer to ensure that this was the case. The officer to whom McDonald handed the phone was Hill. This was verified by McDonald in his own book (McDonald, Oswald And I, Chapter 11). Whilst this doesn’t prove in any way that McDonald was involved with Hill in framing Oswald, it nevertheless seems that McDonald was relying on Hill for what he might say following Oswald’s arrest.

    But regardless of whether or not McDonald was involved with Hill in framing Oswald, Hill (or perhaps Captain Westbrook) had likely coerced McDonald into claiming that after he allegedly disarmed Oswald; he had given “Oswald’s” gun to Bob Carroll. Returning now to the question of whether the gun Carroll was photographed holding outside the Theater was in fact McDonald’s, a photograph of McDonald’s gun shows that it had a silver color; and it is described as being chrome-plated (click here to view a photograph of the gun). On a further note, the barrel of McDonald’s gun was described as being four inches in length. The photograph taken by Stuart L. Reed of Carroll holding the gun in his right hand (which can be viewed here at Robin Unger’s excellent website) shows that it also had a silver color. In his blog post entitled The Tippit Murder: Why Conspiracy Theorists Can’t Tell the Truth about the Rosetta Stone of the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Dale Myers has posted a copy of the aforementioned photograph, which shows that the gun had a darker color than the one posted at Unger’s website.

    As explained previously, Myers misled the readers of his book by telling them that Carroll was holding onto WCE 143; without once mentioning that Carroll actually claimed that he stuck the gun into his belt prior to leaving the Theater. Myers is also well known for his confabulations concerning the ludicrous single bullet theory (see here for example). In light of those (proven) confabulations, it is possible that Myers tampered with the photograph to make the gun look more like WCE 143. Researcher Stan Dane, from Greg Parker’s research forum, was kind enough to provide this writer with a blow up of Carroll holding onto the gun (see below). Dane told this writer that Carroll may have been holding the gun by the barrel. Although this is an intriguing possibility, it nevertheless appears to this writer as though Carroll was actually holding the gun by its handle; with the barrel pointing to the ground. The reader will have to judge for him/herself.

    Although it appears to this writer as though the barrel of the gun Carroll was holding onto is longer than the barrel of McDonald’s gun, they nevertheless appear to have the same color. Besides, for all of the reasons discussed previously, the gun most likely was McDonald’s. Should the reader still doubt that Carroll was a liar who would lie about giving WCE 143 to Hill, then consider that when Carroll testified before the Warren Commission, he was asked if had seen someone with their arm underneath Oswald’s chin, tilting his head back in order to close his mouth. Carroll remarked that he didn’t remember seeing this, and that he was “…directly in front of Oswald, and I say ‘directly’ – just almost right in front of him and there were two people, I know, one [on] each side of him had him by his arms, but I did not see anyone holding his mouth or trying to keep his mouth shut” (WC Volume VII, pages 20 and 21).

    But this was a lie, as the aforementioned photograph of Carroll holding onto the gun shows him standing behind Oswald, and looking directly at him as the officers escorting him are covering his mouth using Officer Charles Walker’s hat; with detective Paul Bentley holding Oswald beneath his chin with his left hand. In fact, the photograph shows no plain clothed Officers who were in front of Oswald (reporter Jim Ewell can be seen on the far right of the photograph looking in the direction of Oswald). As this writer has discussed previously, by all likelihood, Gerald Hill framed Oswald for the murder of Officer Tippit. It is this writer’s belief that after learning that Carroll had grabbed McDonald’s gun during the scuffle with Oswald, he saw this as an opportunity to try and conceal the fact that he pretended to have taken WCE 143 from Oswald by shouting out that he had the gun. Therefore, he coerced McDonald into claiming that after he disarmed Oswald, he gave “Oswald’s” gun to Carroll, and that he also coerced Carroll into claiming that he had given “Oswald’s” gun to him inside the car.

    Although Officer Hawkins implied in both his report to Chief Curry and during his testimony before the Warren Commission that he had seen Hill grab the gun out of Oswald’s hand, he never actually claimed that this was the case. Besides, if Hill actually had taken WCE 143 out of Oswald’s hand after Oswald pulled it out of his belt; he would have had absolutely no reason to conceal this fact. It is therefore obvious that Hawkins didn’t see Hill take a gun out of Oswald’s hand, but probably assumed that he did since he heard him say, words to the effect; “I’ve got the gun.” As for why he didn’t see Carroll take the gun, this can probably be accounted for by the fact that he was busy trying to handcuff Oswald. It is also curious that Hawkins recalled hearing Hill say “I’ve got the gun” as opposed to “I’ve got his gun.” Although detective Toney’s recollection differed slightly, he also recalled hearing someone say “the gun,” as opposed to “his gun.” The reader should also keep in mind that according to the transcripts of the DPD radio recordings, after Hill reported over the radio that they had the suspect, he then stated that they had “…him and the gun” (WCE 705/1974).

    Although this doesn’t prove anything, it nevertheless suggests that Hill knew that the gun wasn’t Oswald’s when he said that he had it. Whilst some might believe that it was McDonald who had WCE 143 with him when he went to the Theater and then tried to plant it on Oswald, such a belief ignores all of the evidence discussed above that Carroll had taken a different gun out of Oswald’s hand during the scuffle. On a further note, although some might argue that Hill really did remove WCE 143 from Oswald during the scuffle, only to coerce McDonald into claiming that Oswald had pulled the gun out and attempted to shoot him (after which he gave the gun to Carroll) as part of the DPD’s ploy to portray Oswald as a guilty man, such a belief ignores the likelihood that he picked up Tippit’s killer from the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley using DPD squad car 207, and other incriminating evidence.

    One must also ignore all of the evidence that a mock-up wallet containing identification for Oswald and his alleged alias, Alek James Hidell, was left in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene to incriminate Oswald as part of the frame up (see part 2 of this writer’s review of With Malice, under the subheading IX: Hints and allegations). Most researchers are probably aware of the allegation that Oswald allegedly tried to shoot McDonald inside the Theater with WCE 143 after he allegedly shot Tippit. Hill, McDonald, Carroll, and Hawkins told the Warren Commission that they observed what appeared to be a nick/indentation on the primer of one the bullets, which was allegedly caused by the firing pin of the revolver (WC Volume III, page 301), (WC Volume VII, pages 23, 55, and 96), Hill also wrote in his report to Chief Curry that one of the bullets had what he referred to as “a hammer mark on the primer” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23). Officers Walker and Hutson indicated in their reports to Chief Curry that they heard the revolver misfire, and verified this when they testified before the Warren Commission (ibid, Items 25 and 47), (WC Volume VII, pages 32 and 39).

    Theater patrons John Gibson and George Applin jr. also told the Warren Commission that they heard the gun misfire (ibid, pages 72 and 89). On the other hand, Officer Ray Hawkins told the Warren Commission; “I heard something that I thought was a snap. I didn’t know whether it was a snap of a pistol – I later learned that they were sure it was. I didn’t know whether it was a snap of the gun or whether it was in the seats someone making the noise” (ibid, page 94). Hawkins’ apparent belief that the snapping sound may have been from the seats is supported by Johnny Brewer, who told the Warren Commission that he “heard a seat pop up” before Oswald was arrested (ibid, page 5). According to FBI agent Cortlandt Cunningham, the indentation on the bullet could not have been produced by the firing pin of WCE 143. Cunningham told the Warren Commission that; “There was no indication, from an examination, that the nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin” (WC Volume III, page 460).

    Given Cunningham’s findings, the indentation was probably placed on the primer of the bullet by the DPD. Could Hill have placed it there? Although Hill claimed that he didn’t hear the so-called misfiring of the gun, he told the Warren Commission that about the time they got Oswald subdued and handcuffed, Officer Hutson asked him if he heard “the gun click” (WC Volume VII, page 52). Therefore, by Hill’s own admission, he knew that Hutson thought he heard the gun misfire. When Hill was interviewed by Bob Whitten at about 2:30 pm on the day of the assassination, he claimed that “Oswald’s” gun had been turned over to Captain Fritz (WCD 1210, page 4). But as also pointed out above, Hill wrote in his report to Chief Curry that he gave the revolver to Lieutenant T.L. Baker at approximately 3:15 pm. If Hill’s latter claim is to be believed, and if Dale Myers claim that Hill’s interview with Whitten took place at about 2:30 pm is accurate, then Hill lied to Whitten. The reason for his lie may have been due to the fact that he was about to place the indentation on the bullet!

    Readers should also keep in mind that during an interview with news reporters on the day of the assassination, Hill began complaining that Oswald “…wouldn’t even admit that he pulled the trigger on the gun in the theatre” following his arrest (WCE 2160). During his interview with Bob Whitten, Hill remarked that “[Oswald], I understand, has resorted to violence before and possibly shot another policeman somewhere” (WCD 1210, page 5). It would seem that Hill was trying to reinforce the notion that Oswald had murdered Tippit. When the FBI questioned Hill about the aforementioned remark, he informed them that the basis for the statement was “…hearsay from an unrecalled source at the [DPD] during the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald by the [DPD] following his arrest on November 22, 1963” or that he may have heard from an “unrecalled” source at the DPD that “… Oswald may have been asked during his interrogation by the [DPD] if he ever shot another Police Officer” (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, section 197, pages 162 and 163).

    Hill then assured the FBI that the above statement was “…strictly ‘third hand’ and he, of his own knowledge, had no basis for the statement” (ibid, page 163). When the FBI questioned Captain Fritz about Hill’s remark, he informed them that he never heard about anyone mentioning this (ibid, page 164). Given all of the evidence pointing to Hill’s complicity in framing Oswald, there is little doubt in this writer’s mind that Hill was lying. The final piece of evidence against Hill which the reader should take into account is from film footage of his interview with news reporters following Oswald’s arrest. One of the news reporters asked Hill if he thought Oswald was the same man who shot Officer Tippit. Hill smiles, looks down, and is momentarily at a loss for words (this can be viewed here at about the 59 minute 40 second mark). One can’t help but wonder what he found so amusing about being asked whether he thought Oswald shot Tippit. Of course, if Hill knew that Oswald was innocent (because he framed him), then this would certainly explain his reaction! Evidently, Hill couldn’t help himself.

    Hill’s possible motive

    Although this writer can speculate as to what Hill’s motive was for his involvement in the assassination, Tippit’s murder, and for framing Oswald; Hill was probably the only person who could have stated with absolute certainty as to what it was. However, consider that during his interview with Bob Whitten, Hill remarked; “[Oswald] did admit in the interrogation a while ago that he was an active communist… he won’t admit anything other than he was a communist…” (WCD 1210, page 5). According to the transcript of Hill’s interview, he also allegedly stated “…and when we got down here and started to frisk him, the only thing [Oswald] said was ‘When I told you I was a communist I told you everything I’m going to tell you,’ or words to that effect…” (ibid). However, according to the actual recording of Hill’s interview (which can be heard here), he stated; “…and when we got down here [Oswald] was talking to [Captain] Fritz and then the only thing he said is ‘When I told you I was a communist I told you everything I’m going to tell you,’ or words to that effect…”

    When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that it was Captain Westbrook who told him that Oswald admitted to being a communist, and that “This is strictly hearsay. I did not hear this myself” (WC Volume VII, page 59). However, Westbrook never claimed in his report to Chief Curry or when he testified before the Warren Commission that Oswald admitted to being a Communist. As a matter of fact, during a filmed interview in New Orleans, Oswald declared that he wasn’t a communist, even though he did declare that he was a Marxist (click here to listen to the interview). Readers should also consider that none of the DPD Officers, FBI agents, USSS agents, including U.S. Postal inspector Harry Holmes (who were involved in interrogating Oswald following his arrest), ever claimed in their reports concerning the interrogations (or when they testified before the Warren Commission) that Oswald admitted to being a communist. In fact, Captain Will Fritz, Postal inspector Harry Holmes, and USSS inspector Thomas Kelly all claimed that Oswald admitted to being a Marxist when he was interrogated, but made no mention of Oswald admitting to being a Communist (Warren Report, Appendix XI, WC Volume IV, page 228, WC Volume VII, page 298).

    It is therefore apparent to this writer that Hill was lying when he claimed that Oswald admitted to being a communist; and that he was eager to portray Oswald as being one. Many researchers of the assassination (including this writer) believe that President Kennedy was killed because those with extreme right wing political beliefs considered him a threat to the anti-Communist beliefs of the United States. Hill’s eagerness to portray Oswald as a communist suggests that he also held extreme right wing political beliefs, and that this may have been his motive for his involvement in the assassination; and for framing Oswald for Tippit’s murder. It is also this writer’s belief that certain individuals connected to U.S. intelligence agencies (such as the CIA) were involved in the assassination. Unfortunately, this writer has been unable determine whether Hill was connected to any of these intelligence agencies.

    In conclusion, this writer does not believe for even a nanosecond to have proven that Gerald Hill was guilty of framing Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit. However, it is nevertheless this writer’s belief that the evidence discussed throughout this essay demonstrates that this was the case. Still, there are many questions regarding Hill’s complicity. Such as why he identified the spent shell casings discarded by Tippit’s killer as being from an automatic weapon if he framed Oswald with the revolver (these issues are discussed here on this writer’s blog). This writer also explains that contrary to the belief of many conspiracy advocates, WCE 143 was the gun used to kill Tippit. Furthermore, in a follow up essay, this writer will make the case that Crafard was Tippit’s killer, and that he was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater and taken out through the rear of the Theater, where he was then placed into a DPD jail cell. But even if the reader doesn’t agree with this writer’s contention that Crafard killed Tippit, and that Hill framed Oswald inside the Theater, this writer nevertheless hopes that the reader will maintain an open mind.

    Acknowledgements

    I would like to thank researchers Greg Parker, Lee Farley, Jim DiEugenio, and Stan Dane for all the help and support they have given me. I especially would like to thank researcher Steven Duffy for generously providing me with information contained in Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a Homicide, information contained in former DPD Officer Nick McDonald’s book, Oswald And I, and with information contained in Richard Trask’s book, Pictures of the Pain. As both Bonner’s and McDonald’s books are very rare to obtain, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Steven for all of his help.

    Click here to read through the writer’s response to questions, feedback, and criticisms concerning the essay. The reader may also be interested in reading through this writer’s essay on former DPD Captain, William Ralph Westbrook here

  • CIA and the Bay of Pigs

    A Federal appeals court says the CIA doesn’t have to reveal information about the Bay of Pigs.

    by Josh Gerstein, At: Politico

  • Robert Rakove, Kennedy, Johnson and the Nonaligned World


    The historiography of the presidency of John F. Kennedy has taken a notable curve over the five decades since his passing. In the wake of his assassination, from about 1965 to 1973, there were a number of books published from former members of his White House staff. For example Ted Sorenson’s Kennedy and Arthur Schlesinger’s A Thousand Days were released in 1965. Pierre Salinger published With Kennedy in 1966. Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers published Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye in 1973. These books all had value, and still are useful books. But the problem with them as history is that they are not, in the best sense, scholarly works. By and large they are memoirs. None of them have bibliographies in any sense. And none of them, except Schlesinger’s book is annotated – and even that is very sparse. Consequently, if one wanted to pen a book – for whatever reason – that was anti-Kennedy, one could dismiss these works as being non-objective books which, because of their personal ties to the president, paint a one-sided view of the man.

    Well, the anti-Kennedy movement did come. And with a vengeance. As I noted in my essay, The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy, it began right after the revelations of the Church Committee. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 324-73) That committee implicated Dwight Eisenhower and Allen Dulles in at least one attempted assassination plot of a foreign leader. But it could not do the same with President Kennedy. Although it did produce plenty of evidence that the CIA on its own, and with help from the Mafia, did try and kill Fidel Castro.

    As a reaction to this verdict, which was perceived by many on the right to be partisan – even though it was partly based on the CIA’s own Inspector General Report – there began to be an effort to reverse the image of Kennedy portrayed in these previous insider books. And also an attempt to reverse the verdict of the Church Committee: that somehow Kennedy was actually involved in assassination plots. In that essay, I mentioned four books published from 1976 onward in this vein. The first was The Search for JFK by Joan and Clay Blair and in 1984, the late John Davis published The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster. The Blair book concentrated on Kennedy from his youth until he decided to run for congress. The Davis book went into his presidency, and used an array of questionable witnesses and twisted testimony to implicate him in the Castro plots. Also in 1984, those reformed leftists Davis Horowitz and Peter Collier published an equally lopsided and untrustworthy volume called The Kennedys: An American Drama. Collier and Horowitz used people like Tim Leary and Priscilla Johnson to portray Kennedy as nothing more than an empty headed playboy upon his arrival in the White House.

    In 1991, Thomas Reeves published A Question of Character, the worst of the four. Reeves did almost no original research. He just crammed as much of the anti-Kennedy literature he could between the covers of his book. Even though he was a Ph. D. in history, he used some of the most specious sources one could imagine, for example John Davis on the Castro plots and Kitty Kelley and People Weekly on the likes of Judith Exner. As I pointed out in my essay, Reeves had an agenda. And the agenda did not include writing good history. Because I exposed why any real historian, if he was looking, should have seen through the falsities in both Davis and Exner. Reeves was not looking.

    But already in 1983 there had begun to be a twist in the curve. Richard Mahoney published his landmark book JFK: Ordeal in Africa. This book could not be dismissed as an insider memoir because Mahoney had spent about a year at the Kennedy Library going through all they had on the immense Congo crisis. He then produced a book that told us more about the origins and design of Kennedy’s foreign policy than any previous tome. Then in 1991, UCLA historian Irving Bernstein published Promises Kept, a reassessment of President Kennedy’s domestic policies dealing primarily with the economy and civil rights. In 1992, John Newman published JFK and Vietnam, which was the most detailed and convincing book written to that time – and perhaps since – on Kennedy’s intent to withdraw from Vietnam. In 1994, Professor Donald Gibson published Battling Wall Street, a volume dedicated almost exclusively to an examination of Kennedy’s economic policies at home and abroad, e.g. The Alliance for Progress.

    The impact of these four books was considerable. They began to turn the tide. Because, unlike the earlier books, these works were scholarly in approach and tone. They were filled with footnotes and sources and therefore could not be easily dismissed. And much of the footnoting was to primary sources, which had just recently been declassified. In the light of this impact, other authors now began to mine this field. One which authors like Davis, Reeves and Sy Hersh had done all they could to muddy the waters about. We therefore got valuable work on the Kennedy presidency by authors like David Kaiser, Jim Douglass, James Blight, David Talbot and Gordon Goldstein. By and large, what these books prove is that the first wave of authors, if scanty in their sourcing, were correct in their judgment. The Kennedy presidency really was a break from what had preceded it. And what came after it.

    In the last two years, we have seen the arrival of two books that go even further in that regard. They deal with a rarified but important subject: Kennedy’s approach to, and his dealings with the Third World. First there was Betting on the Africans by Philip Muehlenbeck. This was an acute and comprehensive look at Kennedy’s foreign policy in Africa. That book is now out in paperback and it is well worth purchasing. (See my review)

    After Muehlenbeck’s work, we now have Robert Rakove’s book on a similar subject. It is entitled Kennedy, Johnson and the Nonaligned World. The Rakove book is a good complement to Muehlenbeck’s for two reasons. First, although the book does not deal as extensively with Africa as Muehlenbeck, Rakove does deal with other countries outside of Africa e.g. India, and Indonesia. Secondly, Rakove goes into events well beyond Kennedy’s death, which helped reverse his Third World policies, e.g. Nixon’s famous Bohemian Grove speech of 1967.

    II

    Rakove begins his book on November 23, 1963. Depicting a state of official mourning in Cairo, he quotes Anwar El Sadat as saying Kennedy was the first American president who understood the Afro-Asian world. He then shifts the scene to India. There, Nehru addressed a special session of congress. He said that with Kennedy’s murder, a crime against humanity had been enacted. Not just against the American people but also, because of Kennedy’s sweeping and humane vision of the world, the crime had been committed against all mankind. In Jakarta, Sukarno delivered a heartfelt eulogy and ordered all flags lowered to half-mast.

    Rakove then gets to the point of his book. He notes that just one year later, angry mobs attacked the American libraries in both Egypt and Indonesia. And President Johnson was maligned in no uncertain terms by all three leaders. Three years after that, Gamal Abdul Nasser, the charismatic leader of Egypt actually severed relations with the United States over Johnson’s break with Kennedy’s policy in the Middle East, which clearly favored Israel in the Six-Day War. These personal attacks in Africa and Asia were to become a recurrent event as time went on. Culminating, of course, with the physical attacks on the USA in September of 2001.

    Rakove notes that, as an historical marker, the non-aligned movement began in 1955. This was the group of Third World countries who did not want to commit to either the east or west, and therefore become pawns in the Cold War. The man given credit for the first organizational meeting was Achmed Sukarno. His foreign minister organized that meeting, and it was held in Bandung, Indonesia.

    One reason Sukarno did this was because neither he, nor many other Third World leaders, had any trust in Eisenhower’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. (Rakove, p. 3) These leaders looked askance at Dulles’ penchant of ringing the USSR with American inspired regional alliances to stop the spread of communism. Nehru called this “a wrong approach, a dangerous approach, and a harmful approach.” (ibid, p. 5) Dulles’ Manichean view of the world inevitably created conflicts in three areas: 1.) the Middle East 2.) Southeast Asia, and 3.) sub-Sahara Africa. For instance, Nasser clearly objected to the creation of the Bagdad Pact in 1955, which included Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and the United Kingdom. (p. 6) Dulles’ State Department was so much enamored of the “with us or against us” Cold War mentality that it labeled the growth of the non-aligned movement as “one of the most dangerous political trends of the fifties.” (ibid, p. 6) In fact, Dulles even contemplated staging a shadow Bandung Conference with conservative, sympathetic American allied nations at the conference. (p. 9) In fact, at a speech in Iowa in 1956, Dulles actually spoke aloud about the false pretense of a nation pretending to be neutral. In fact, he said his alliance system had eliminated that possibility. So much for the idea of a non-aligned country steering clear of the Cold War. (p. 10) Dulles was so reviled in the non-aligned world that, after he died, he became known as the man who made their foreign policy immoral.

    Like Muehlenbeck, Rakove begins with some choices made by Eisenhower and Dulles that clearly connote that they were not for the revolution in nationalism that was taking place in Africa and Asia at the time. Quite aptly, Rakove mentions Dulles pulling out of the Aswan Dam deal in Egypt and making Nasser go to the Russians for financing of the project. In the dispute between India and Portugal over the Indian Goa exclaves, the administration seemed to favor Portugal. (p. 14) And in Indonesia, Dulles tended to ignore the dispute between the Netherlands and Sukarno over the valuable island territory of West Irian. In fact, privately he was opposed to turning over the territory to Indonesia, and twice he refused to commandeer negotiations between the two countries. (p. 15) Rakove then describes how when Sukarno seemed to get too close to the Soviets, the Dulles brothers began to plan a coup against him.

    In continuing his summary of the Eisenhower-Dulles policy in the Third World, Rakove states that in Southeast Asia, Eisenhower wanted to assume control over the fallen French Empire in Indochina. (p. 16) Rakove adds that John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen, the CIA Director, were also opposed to neutral governments in Burma, Laos and Cambodia.

    Turning to Africa, Rakove states that Eisenhower had not even set up a State Department section dealing with African affairs until 1958. In a revealing aside, he writes that, before that time, African policy was run out of the European Bureau. (p. 18) Dulles was quite explicit about how wealthy certain areas of Africa were in mineral resources. He then added that the West would be in serious trouble if Africa were lost to the Free World.

    Like Muehlenbeck, Rakove notes that when France ostensibly left Africa, DeGaulle tried to keep as much control and influence as he could over Francophone Africa. Only Sekou Toure of Guinea did not accept DeGaulle’s terms for aid in order to stay part of what was in essence a commonwealth. Therefore, France tried to isolate his country. Dulles went along with this by not recognizing its independence at first. (p. 19) He did later only when communist countries agreed to aid the country.

    III

    From here, Rakove now segues into the giant Congo crisis. As I have said several times, no author I know of did a better job of describing that struggle and America’s role in it than Richard Mahoney in his classic JFK: Ordeal in Africa. At this stage of his book, Rakove gives us a decent enough precis of that titanic struggle, up to the murder of Patrice Lumumba. He uses this as a mirror to show how angry most of the African leaders of the time were about, as with France, Belgium’s duplicity in announcing a withdrawal, but using that withdrawal to keep control of their former colony by other imperial means instead of direct colonization. Rakove writes that whatever Eisenhower and Dulles said in public about being neutral in the Congo struggle, their actions clearly betrayed their siding with Belgium against revolutionary leader Patrice Lumumba. (p. 21) Two other examples of this favoritism toward colonialism were the CIA’s role in the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and the attempt to overthrow Sukarno in Indonesia. In these three cases, Eisenhower and Dulles clearly sided with regressive forces as opposed to the nationalists who wanted to be independent.

    In the face of all this, and also the USA’s intervention in Lebanon in 1958, the USSR now began to make headway in the Third World. Rakove draws the above as background to what he is about to detail as a not so quiet revolution in foreign policy by President Kennedy. The word he will use to describe it is “engagement”.

    In fact, Rakove begins the second chapter of his book with a promise by president-elect John F. Kennedy. This promise made explicit that JFK was going to break with the Eisenhower/Dulles vision of the Third World. Kennedy said that he would not support substituting a new kind of tyranny for the former shackles of colonialism. But further he said he would not expect these new states to support America’s view of the world in each and every instance; but he would expect them to support their own freedom. (p. 29) These comments, in direct opposition to what Dulles had stated, set the tone for the split that will now come from Kennedy versus Eisenhower and Dulles. To show just how big a divide Kennedy would launch, Rakove notes that, even Adlai Stevenson, the liberal icon of the Democratic Party, called Kennedy’s memorable 1957 speech on the French/Algerian civil war “a great mistake”. (p. 32) But today, this speech is seen as the baseline for JFK’s beliefs about colonial conflict and the state of the emerging Third World. And it was these beliefs that would now be set into action by what Rakove calls the policy of engagement. A revolutionary policy that the author says academia has not really recognized.

    Rakove points out India as an example of a key state in the non-aligned world. Kennedy thought he could use India as a broker state to communicate with other non-aligned nations from Casablanca to Jakarta. Kennedy felt this way at least since 1958. For at that time, with Sen. John Sherman Cooper – a former ambassador to India – he co-sponsored the Kennedy-Cooper resolution, which featured expanded aid to India. (p. 33) But in addition to India, upon his inauguration, Kennedy wanted to develop better relations with both Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.

    The author now goes into the reason d’etre for engagement. Kennedy felt that the “get tough” attitude that Foster Dulles had displayed with these countries had been, quite often, counter-productive. To the point where it had provided openings for the Soviets or Chinese to gain a competitive advantage. (p. 40)

    Rakove then makes an interesting distinction in the different attitudes toward engagement in the Kennedy administration. He points out one group of policy-makers who he calls idealists, that is men who acted as they did out of sheer fairness and charity over past Western crimes in the Third World. Rakove includes here Chester Bowles, African supervisor Mennen Williams and John K. Galbraith. Then he delineates a second group of men who he calls realists. These are policy-makers who acted as they did more out of a pragmatic view of the world. That is, if the USA repeated the excesses of Dulles/Eisenhower, then the USSR and China would make more inroads in the Third World. Rakove lists in this group Walt Rostow, George Ball and NSC staffer Robert Komer.

    At this point, the author notes the central case of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and his relations with first Kennedy and then Johnson. (p. 52) Rakove writes that Kennedy and Rusk only had the barest of formal relationships. For instance, JFK often called him “Mr. Secretary”. There was none of the personal bonding between the two that Kennedy had with say Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Galbraith or even George Ball. And, as others have noted, Rusk very likely would have been replaced in a second Kennedy term. He contrasts this with the warmer relations that Rusk had with Lyndon Johnson, who decided to keep Rusk on throughout his presidency. And unlike Ball, McNamara and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Rusk endured the entire build up of forces in South Vietnam, something Kennedy almost certainly would not have done. But Rakove also notes, Rusk was a key reason that Kennedy’s policy of engagement wavered and then died under President Johnson. For in Kennedy’s outreach to the Third World, Rusk was only following orders. He had no internal beliefs in the policy to parallel Kennedy’s. Therefore, when Johnson eventually dropped engagement, Rusk offered no real resistance.

    But to further delineate what happened after Kennedy’s murder, Rakove outlines the working relationship between Foster Dulles and Johnson in the fifties. As Senate Majority Leader, LBJ had a close working relationship with the former Secretary of State. In fact, when Dulles was in the hospital dying of cancer, Johnson had sent him flowers and Dulles thanked Johnson for his many kindnesses and concern for his condition. (p. 55)

    In addition to this, Rakove notes – as many others have – that Kennedy’s management style differed from Johnson’s. Kennedy encouraged open debate and the exchange of contrary ideas. To put it mildly, Johnson did not. Therefore, in relation to the non-aligned world, Kennedy’s successor tended to ignore the input of Williams, Bowles and Stevenson. (p. 58) For instance, when Stevenson once tried to advise Johnson on his China policy, LBJ told him that is not what he was paid for. That was what Rusk was paid for. (p. 59) It was this difference in style, plus Johnson’s view of foreign aid as granting America rights of return on investment, plus the soaring escalation in Vietnam, which eventually managed to kill Kennedy’s engagement policy

    IV

    Rakove traces the beginnings of the formal engagement policy to a State Department paper issued in May of 1961. This paper recommended cooperation with neutralist countries, and also the necessity of countering Nikita Khrushchev’s January, 1961 appeal of Russian aid for wars of national liberation. (p. 166) Also, Kennedy drafted a message supporting the 1961 Belgrade Conference of non-aligned nations. This contrasts with Dulles’ strategy, which contemplated staging a rival conference of American-friendly states. (p. 76) After the Belgrade Conference, Kennedy began to direct attention to non-aligned states through the appointment of active and knowledgeable ambassadors like Galbraith in India and John Badeau in Egypt. (p. 83) Some of these men, like Galbraith, were personal friends of JFK.

    In May of 1961, Kennedy sent a letter to the leaders of the Arab world asking for their help in seeking a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (p. 85) Almost every reply was belligerent, especially that of Saudi Arabia. The exception was the one by Nasser of Egypt. Kennedy used that reply to begin a correspondence with the pan Arab leader. This friendship managed to tone down Nasser’s anti-American and anti-Israeli invective while JFK was president. Kennedy also began to use foreign aid, especially food aid packages, to nations like Egypt, India and Indonesia in order to further relationships in the non-aligned world.

    But beyond these matters, it was Kennedy’s policies in places like Congo, Portuguese Africa, and West Irian that really brought him the appreciation and sympathy of the leaders of the non-aligned nations. These actions symbolized a clean break from the “with us or against us” attitude of John Foster Dulles. And it therefore acknowledged the desire of the non-aligned countries to go their own way with confidence. Knowing that the new president would understand that independence from Washington’s dictates did not mean automatic alliance with the USSR. In fact, in some cases, as with William Attwood’s posting to Guinea, Kennedy’s policies either lessened or even negated growing relationships in the Third World with the USSR. (pgs. 89-91)

    By 1963, with Kennedy’s help to India during a Chinese incursion, Rakove says engagement was at its apogee. (p. 92) Especially in the wake of the Russian attempt to make Cuba a forward base for its atomic weapons. But according to the author, in 1963, the policy effectiveness began to wind down. Rakove’s opinion on this is that with Kennedy occupied with the big issues of Berlin, Vietnam and Cuba, a dispute broke out that was actually three sided. It was between the previously noted idealist faction, the realist faction, and on the third side Dean Rusk. Who, according to Rakove, never really had his heart in the policy. (pgs. 95-96)

    But there were also external forces at work. As Rakove says, by 1963, the White House was getting it from both sides on this issue. From the Europeans for siding with the Third World, and from the non-aligned countries for not making anti-colonialism a clearly demarcated American policy. Concerning the former, both England and France advised Kennedy not to join in the UN military solution to the Congo crisis. (p. 104) JFK did so anyway. On the other side, India wondered why the USA did not formally back its military attempt to expel Portugal from Goa. Actually, the American ambassador tried to talk Nehru out of taking military action there. And, in fact, Adlai Stevenson opposed the Indian action in the United Nations. (pgs. 109-110)

    Rakove now points out a third element that began to slow down the policy of engagement. Because Kennedy’s policy was now so out there, that it began to attract opposition from congress. Even from so-called liberal Democrats like Stuart Symington. (p. 110) And finally, struggles like the Congo and the West Irian dispute in Indonesia were so difficult and drawn out that they sapped the energy and the will of the White House to do more. The West Irian dispute necessitated Kennedy sending his brother Robert to The Hague for personal diplomacy with the colonialists.

    According to the author, these factors set the stage for the eclipse of the engagement policy in 1964, under the stewardship of Johnson and Rusk.

    V

    To Rakove, a key point in the collapse of engagement was the change in policy under LBJ in Congo. (p. 128) After the death of Dag Hammarskjold, and under the influence of ambassador Edmund Gullion, Kennedy had gotten personally involved in leading the effort to keep the Congo intact. Thereby stopping the European attempt to split off the rich Katanga province and precluding a replacement of colonialism by European imperialism. The high point of this policy was Kennedy’s backing of a UN military mission in 1963 to prevent the succession of Katanga by Moise Tshombe. But in the fall of 1963, a leftist rebellion against Kennedy’s chosen successor to Lumumba, labor leader and Lumumba colleague, Cyrille Adoula, began in Stanleyville. Kennedy wanted to use special forces commandoes under the leadership of Colonel Michael Greene to train Adoula’s army, the ANC. But after Kennedy’s murder, this whole situation went completely awry.

    The Pentagon did not want to back Adoula. They favored army chief Joseph Mobutu, a staunch anti-communist who was much friendlier with the Europeans than Lumumba or Adoula. They deliberately stalled Greene while Kennedy was alive. After his death, the hardliners at the Pentagon now took over. Exhausted and sensing a power shift after Kennedy’s death, Adoula resigned in July of 1964. President Kasavubu appointed Moise Tshombe in his place. (p. 128) Tshombe pulled out all the stops in putting down the Stanleyville rebellion. Including bringing in mercenaries from the whites controlled state of Rhodesia. When leftists kidnapped Belgians citizens and American diplomats, Johnson now reversed Kennedy’s policy and sided with Belgium. American aircraft flown by CIA backed Cuban exiles now begin a massive air bombardment around Stanleyville. This led to a firestorm of criticism from the non-aligned states in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. (p. 130) Which is why Rakove calls the Stanleyville operation a milestone in the turning around of America’s image in the Third World from Kennedy to Johnson and then Nixon. In fact, Rakove notes that the Stanleyville incursion sparked even more criticism of the USA than did the death of Lumumba. As Rakove notes, with the retaliation by Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the United States was now seen by many of the non-aligned countries as becoming an imperial power. (p. 134)

    Which leads to another distinction between Johnson and Kennedy. Kennedy risked relations with Europe in order to correct injustices in the Third World. And at times, he refused to go along with European allies on matters of principle outside colonial disputes e.g. the Skybolt affair with England, his refusal to give atomic weapons to Bonn. Johnson had little patience or appetite for these kinds of disputes. He was very conscious of the age-old American alliance with the United Kingdom.(p. 136) And in fact, very soon after the transition, Komer saw that LBJ would not be as sympathetic to the Third World as JFK was. For instance, Kennedy had always treated Nkrumah with respect. But now LBJ began to favor the more conservative African states who considered Nkrumah wild and unpredictable, or even worse. (p. 144) Nkrumah understood what was happening and he began to turn on the Europeans, for example, the British.

    The same thing happened between Johnson and Sukarno. Sukarno was against the formation of the British union of Malaysia. This included the countries of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. England needed the USA to stop supporting Sukarno in order to establish Malaysia. It was created in September of 1963. England brought much pressure on JFK to back Malaysia and ignore Sukarno’s protests. (p. 148) In fact, when Sukarno sent one of his top generals to visit Kennedy that fall, Kennedy was set to tell him that he still backed Sukarno and considered the Malaysia dispute only a temporary diversion. (p. 149) But General Nasution arrived not to meet Kennedy, but as Sukarno’s emissary to his funeral. But during their meeting, LBJ told Nasution he would continue Kennedy’s policies in regards to Indonesia.

    As Rakove points out, in light of what was about to happen, it is hard to believe that Johnson was doing anything but dissimulating with Nasution. For Johnson did not sign the aid bill that Kennedy was about to sign, which was still on the president’s desk. He now began to freeze out Sukarno and termed him a bully in private. And since Johnson favored England in the Malaysia dispute, he felt that if he talked to Sukarno it would show a sign of weakness. (p. 149) This played into the hands of the anti-Sukarno lobby in congress, which was growing fast. Kennedy had a state visit to Indonesia scheduled at the time of his death. Johnson never fulfilled that promise and never invited Sukarno to Washington. As Rakove notes, one reason LBJ changed Kennedy’s policy was in response to growing conflicts in Vietnam. He perceived Sukarno as too far left and to beholden to the PKI, the communist party in Indonesia. Kennedy’s attitude in this regard was the contrary. He was not afraid of Sukarno’s backing because he knew he was primarily a nationalist. But further if America froze Sukarno out, this would gravitate him to the communists.

    Which is what happened. Sukarno was now driven into the arms of the Chinese. And the USSR now sold MIG-21’s to Sukarno. Sukarno now recognized North Vietnam, and condemned growing aid by Johnson to Saigon. By late 1964, Sukarno was in an open alliance with Bejing. (p. 151)

    The same pattern occurred in Egypt. Three factors were at work that ended up poisoning the constructive work Kennedy had done with Nasser. First, Johnson was much more openly sympathetic to Israel than Kennedy was in the Israeli-Arab dispute. Second, unlike JFK, Johnson leaned toward the more conservative Arab states in the region, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran. Third, LBJ was not sympathetic toward Nasser’s ambition to lead the non-aligned movement. (p. 150) As Rakove points out, Kennedy’s moves toward friendly relations with Nasser were looked upon with a jaundiced eye by Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In the civil war in Yemen, Kennedy took Nasser’s side with the nationalist rebels versus the monarchy. He even tried to mediate the dispute. But England now openly sided with the monarchists and began to refer to Nasser as an Arab Hitler. (p. 156)

    By 1964, Nasser decided that the United States was about to shift policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel. (p. 159) In anticipation of this, he decided to warm up to the Russians and invited Nikita Khrushchev to visit. His growing violent rhetoric inspired students to attack the US Embassy in Cairo. And seeing where the United States was headed in Congo, he demanded all American influence out of that country.

    Finally, Rakove deals with the India/Pakistan dispute. Most commentators would say that Kennedy favored India. And again, the British did not like the fact that he did so. (p. 165) Now Johnson again began to reverse Kennedy’s policy in the area toward Pakistan. Predictably, India now began to buy arms from the Soviets.

    As Rakove writes, by 1964, the image of the USA abroad was literally in flames. US libraries in Cairo and Jakarta were burned. That is how fast the perception circulated that Johnson was breaking with Kennedy.

    VI

    As the author notes, Kennedy was very active in extending aid packages to Third World countries. Some of these programs he initiated, some he used to a unique and unprecedented degree: Alliance for Progress, Food for Peace, the Peace Corps. There were two views of foreign aid. One view said it should be used to help the economies of the undeveloped world grow and prosper. Therefore, if expensive, large-scale programs were necessary, Kennedy should go to congress and ask for the money. Which he did.

    The second view of foreign aid was that it was really more like an insurance policy. If the USA gave someone aid, we expected loyalty back. The battle over these two views gained momentum as Kennedy took more and more risks with his engagement policy. (p. 180) As conflicts grew in places like Congo, Goa, Yemen, and Malaysia, Kennedy’s opponents began to make the argument that the lowering of foreign aid should be a way of punishing non aligned countries who would not heed Washington’s wishes. And the fact that Kennedy even extended aid to Tito of Yugoslavia, who was part of the Communist Bloc, made his program more vulnerable. (p. 182)

    Again, men in his own party now challenged Kennedy. For instance, Democratic senator Bill Proxmire wanted to ban all foreign aid to communist countries. Stuart Symington opposed aid to India for construction of a steel mill. He cited the words of the Shah of Iran, a Kennedy nemesis, “No country could afford to stay neutral in the Cold War.” (p. 184) Ernest Gruening opposed aid to Nasser. (p. 189) So in his last year, Kennedy’s request for a large foreign aid package of nearly 5 billion was gradually whittled down while he was alive to about 4 billion. But when Johnson took office, it drooped even more, down to 3 billion. (p. 190) Simply because Johnson looked at the program through the second lens, as a way of rewarding friends and punishing perceived enemies. And then after this, Johnson never made the high requests for foreign aid that JFK did. As a result of this change in policy, the USA has little leverage in places like Egypt and Indonesia. And Rakove notes that by 1966, the whole Kennedy experiment with engagement was finished. Even Pakistan had moved closer to China, and India to the USSR. And as the Vietnam War now began to spin out of control, and non-aligned countries began to criticize the bombing program, Johnson began to cut even more aid programs to his critics. In fact, some countries now swore off any US aid e.g. Egypt and India. (p. 207-08) In fact Johnson actually created the Perkins Committee on foreign aid to explicitly recommend aid for political ends. (p. 212)

    Near the end of the book, Rakove tries to find specific reasons for the cessation of engagement. He goes overboard when he says that the White House encouraged the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. As both John Newman, and Jim Douglass have shown, the overthrow of Diem was a plot manufactured by a cabal in the State Department made up of Averill Harriman, Roger Hilsman and Mike Forrestal. They were aided and abetted in Vietnam by Henry Cabot Lodge and Lucien Conein. (See John Newman’s JFK and Vietnam, pgs. 345-56; James W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable pgs. 163-167)

    Rakove gets more realistic when he writes that Johnson was never as interested in Third Word problems as Kennedy was. (p. 217) Some, like Komer, tried to tell Johnson what was at stake if Kennedy’s policy was not upheld and continued after his death. But it was no use. Johnson did not continue with state visits at the pace Kennedy had. He did not exchange correspondence as Kennedy did. And he did not have nearly the personal charm or warmth towards these leaders that Kennedy did. As Rakove writes, “LBJ lacked Kennedy’s intellectual interest in decolonization and his advisors had lost some of their enthusiasm for presidential diplomacy.” (p. 218) As the author notes, Johnson never met with any African non-aligned head of state. In fact, the new president began to meet with representatives of countries who were opposed to the non-aligned world, like Israel and Malaysia. And as the policy changed, Kennedy’s handpicked ambassadors now left their posts, like John Badeau in Egypt. And now the White House tried to actually discourage certain countries from attending the non-aligned meetings. (p. 221)

    Then as three non aligned leaders were disposed of by coups – Ben Bella in Algeria, Sukarno in Indonesia, and Nkrumah in Ghana – Johnson looks at these as bad men getting their comeuppance. Rakove argues that these events encouraged Johnson to escalate even further in Vietnam. (I must point out another point of contention with the author. He argues that the great Indonesia overthrow of 1965 was completely internal. Many others disagree and believe Western intelligence has a role in it beforehand, since it was accurately predicted a year in advance.) And as Johnson senselessly escalated in Southeast Asia, the no aligned leaders now vilified him even more. Which, in turn, made Johnson cut off even more aid programs, which worsened relations. (p. 243)

    In fact, the whole relationship with Egypt collapsed in 1966. Johnson had sold more and more arms to Israel in 1965 and 1966. (p. 246) And Johnson also favored the monarchy in Saudi Arabia over Nasser. When Israeli jets bombed the Egyptian Air Force on June 5, 1967, within 24 hours, Nasser broke relations with the USA. (p. 247) They would stay broken for six years. Two things now happened in the non-aligned movement. It became more Soviet backed. And also more of the members explicitly criticized Johnson’s support for Israel over the Arabs. But further, Johnson did next to nothing to try and get Portugal to dispose of her African colonies. Which was another reversal of Kennedy’s policy.

    As Rakove points out, Johnson’s lack of respect and interest for the Third World continued under Richard Nixon. In a famous speech Nixon gave at eh Bohemian Grove in 1967, Nixon recommended only giving aid to nations allied to America, and noting the rioting against America abroad, he looked askance at Kennedy’s engagement policy and what it had achieved. (pgs. 253-55)

    Near the end, Rakove maps out three turning points which turned around the engagement policy. These were the Stanleyville operation in Congo, Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, and Johnsons’ support for Israel during the Six Day War. (p. 256) But he says the main factor was probably not one of specifics. But it was the difference between the two men, Kennedy and Johnson.

    Overall, this is an intelligent and worthy book on Kennedy’s revolutionary foreign policy. I have made a couple of criticisms , and I could add one more. Rakove writes that Johnson committed to Vietnam because Kennedy had. Which ignores the fact that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam in 1963 and Johnson knew that and explicitly disagreed with that policy and therefore reversed it. But again, taken as a whole, this is a valuable book. When coupled with Muehlenbeck’s Betting on the Africans, much needed light has now been cast over the specifics of Kennedy’s dealings with the Third World. How these broke with the past, and how LBJ and Nixon then returned them to their previous state. Which made our relations in the undeveloped world much less humane. Or as Bobby Kennedy called it, America had now lost what it should always maintain, “A decent respect for the opinions of Mankind”

  • Master Class with John Hankey, IV: Corson, Trento, Hankey, and Their Zhou En-Lies


    The frustrating thing about being a writer is sometimes things don’t make the final cut. Such was the case when I wrote up a mini article for Jim DiEugenio to use in his review of Dark Legacy. I recall; I sent it to him after the horse had bolted. This was not helped by my decision to exclude it in my second article “Onward and Downward With John Hankey.

    I had wanted to expand on a point made by Jim during his Murder Solved forum back and forth with John Hankey (JH) (a very revealing insight into his solipsistic mind). One of the angles Hankey has used to stump his “Prescott Bush the real power of the CIA” myth is the CIA’s 1955 attempt on the life of Chinese leader Zhou Enlai (for background on the CIA’s operation against EnLai click here). He believes Prescott Bush (PB) ran the CIA because he supposedly denied Allen Dulles information from the committee reviewing the attempted assassination of Mr En-Lai.

    As we shall see Hankey is distorting this scenario; hence, exaggerating once again. He is also exposing the shallowness of his reasoning and research for the umpteenth time.

    Hankey Pankey at Murder Solved

    After my Hankey piece, I ended my stint at the Murder Solved Forum. I still hold the vast majority of the people there in high regard, and they were great fun. Indeed, while I do not share Wim Dankbaar’s take on several things (PB in particular) their tolerance of my positions was humbling. Indeed, Murder Solved stands as the only current staging point for any moderated debate between a CTKA representative, (Jim, who stepped in after I left) and John Hankey.

    What piqued my interest at the time was a comment made by Hankey below.

    “Prescott Bush was sent to investigate. And, says Trento, Dulles asked for an update, and was told that he didn’t have sufficient clearance. My points are two-fold: 1) the fact that Dulles was director, and therefore in the public spotlight, suggests that he would have been a figurehead so that things could go on behind the scenes, directed by truly powerful parties unknown, and 2) this story of Trento’s suggest that Prescott was the power behind the scenes.”

    This is a gross misappropriation of the author (Trento) and his comments by Hankey. It also opened up a can of worms that Hankey, in his desperation to distort for his own purposes, missed.

    Trento and Corson Translated for Mr Hankey

    Let us now re-examine Hankey’s rather game changing sentence…

    “And, says Trento, Dulles asked for an update, and was told that he didn’t have sufficient clearance.”

    Trento actually wrote the following, and the parallels with Hankey’s absurd fantasies with the Bush/CIA document are all too obvious.

    “Bush pressed Corson about whether there had been any out of the ordinary communications preceding the ill-fated assignment. Corson told Bush that Allen Dulles had made attempts to find out what Truscott’s operatives were doing. I explained to him that I thought Dulles was unhappy because he was not told operational details when his agency had to provide logistical support. That seemed to satisfy Bush.”

    If PB really did fly to Hong Kong and discuss the operation with Corson, then he made it very clear he wanted to find out about Dulles. Dulles, for his part, purportedly wants to know about what Colonel Lucian Truscott’s operatives were doing. The last part is so straightforward it is mind –boggling that Hankey could have distorted it as he did. Dulles only wants to know what was happening so he could supply the expertise and equipment. There is no indication of Dulles being cut out of the loop, and there is no indication of Bush being in on it. Nor is there any evidence of some banal committee meeting. In fact, it is just the opposite, the “that seemed to satisfy Bush” line indicates Corson had brushed him off. No matter what Hankey has said, he clearly is wrong about this. Just as he distorted the McBride/Hoover/Bush memo. However, as we will see, Trento was conned, as well.

    Bill Corson: Angleton’s Rebellious Limited Hangout Truth Teller William Corson is an intriguing figure. While he posed as something of a rebel, I liken him to James Bamford. He is essentially a guy cut loose to be a limited hangout exponent. Corson worked for Dulles, and while maintaining his stance as a CIA outsider, he introduced Trento to James Angleton.

    How many CIA rebellious “outsiders” recommend authors to people like Jim Angleton? Corson also cooked up the story to Trento that Dulles petitioned LBJ to be on the Warren Commission (Trento “Secret History of the CIA” pages, 268-269). Although, as Donald Gibson brilliantly surmised in “The Assassinations”, the data indicates there would not have been a Warren Commission without a guarantee of Dulles on it. Dulles clearly wasn’t begging anyone.

    Corson, for all of his CIA critiques, was a dyed in the wool Angleton supporter. In the 80’s, he co-wrote a book with Robert Crowley, Angleton’s friend at the CIA. This book was called “The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power”. It argued that, contrary to what many thought was going on in the Soviet Union at the time—the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev—nothing had changed at all, and the KGB was actually running the country. Which, as we know today, is so wrong as to be ludicrous and dangerous. Corson was putting out a propaganda line, with some help from Crowley and Angleton. Still, Hankey somehow cannot see how this throws backward light on the Hong Kong story.

    Really, Corson like any limited hangout specialist, was more than prepared to distribute BS and spread a little bit of truth when he could. His angle concerning GHWB being moulded by Dulles, is one of his more credible claims. Although, I have to be careful of cherry picking here. Corson spoke a lot of BS. There is nothing outside of him to indicate any special status bestowed upon GHWB by Dulles. Allen already had his own beautiful children: Dick Helms and Jim Angleton. As for PB, as one will see throughout this article there is little verification, even anecdotal, for the role Corson puts him in. Indeed, the roots of the bogus all-powerful PB angle today seem to stem solely from his direction.

    The Dubious Meeting with Prescott in Hong Kong

    John Hankey, who never figured this out on his own, is likely to try and say we are defending the Bush family (again). This is stupid. PB was a blue blood of his age. He had no problems with Nazi money, was an ardent supporter of the CIA, and he was a Bonesman, which gave him some useful contacts. He only was never as high up the chain of command as John Hankey fantasizes, not even close. The comment below from Corson is more important and more dubious than anything JH has said about PB and EnLai.

    “I was unaware that the senator was at that altitude. I didn’t know anyone outside the White House who knew about these operations. That’s how I learned that he (Prescott) was Ike’s adviser on the most secret covert operations.” (Page 11)

    Corson is referring to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Prescott Bush allegedly sat on. Yet, this committee is not White House brass; it is made up entirely of bipartisan groups of politicians of which even a cursory glance on Google will tell you Bush was not even a chair. If perchance Bush were involved, this hodgepodge group would have been out of their league in dealing with the CIA. Their monitoring of the agency was not even in their mandate for starters.

    Thus, I find it hard to believe Corson, a veritable alley cat, would not have known about the NSC (National Security Council) NSC 5412/1 and 2 committees set up in 1955 not to mention the rather more secretive “President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities.” Nevertheless, this kicked off in early January of 1956 . (John Ranelagh, “The Agency”, page 279).

    The reprinted version of “The Secret History of the CIA” which came out in 2005 does not mention PB, while GHWB barely gets any coverage. When Trento discusses En-Lai in the former, he uses an interview with Donald Denesyla, “Corsons Armies of Ignorance”, and Miles Copeland’s “Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics”. Corson’s account is the only one that mentions PB. Hence, what I find interesting in Trento’s “Prelude to Terror”, which was also released that year, is Trento, who was obviously coy on Corson’s PB story, in “The Secret History of the CIA”. He seems to have noted “evil and discredited Bush family” books sold like hot cakes. He simply added the PB story he initially ignored due to its implausibility to make a buck in “Prelude to Terror”.

    Therefore, I must give credit to Russ Baker here. He too dealt with the Zhou En-Lai angle and got sucked into Corson’s PB line. However, he never really tried definitively pushing the PB insider angle as much as Trento had. Besides, he was nowhere near as off the wall as Hankey was.

    A Suspicious Mind is Never Satisfied

    Here are just a few things that bug me about Corson’s account.

    • Regardless of their being no evidence anywhere in any Eisenhower biography, or in the Eisenhower Library concerning PB being intelligence adviser to Eisenhower, why not just send Corson home or get someone else to debrief him in Washington?
    • Why didn’t PB simply call up Truscott?
    • Why didn’t he take a stroll and have a cup of tea with Allen?
    • While it is feasible, PB may have snuck into Hong Kong, the idea of a well-known and highly visible 6 foot 4, U.S. Politician, playing a game of golf on a popular course after a very important clandestine event with a known covert operator 6km across from Red China is simply stupid.
    • Bush taking a journey of some 7,892 miles (11,265,408 km) for a ridiculously short chat and a round of golf is worse than anything Hankey could dream up.

    These queries further detract from Corson’s dubious tale. Furthermore, if Dulles were not waiting on Truscott for anything. If there were not some mythical committee that somehow held Dulles accountable. If PB were never in this mystical group or partook, in the,NSC1-2 meetings, it stands to reason the people chasing the evidence were not getting anything substantial. Why, because Corson is having a yarn.

    Sympathy for the Hankey

    I can understand Hankey’s confusion here, Trento, and Baker, the two blokes who have made the most of the tale in recent years, for whatever reason, ignored the bigger picture. Hence, Hankey can legitimately blame people for leading him astray (to a small degree) for once. This is a small consolation for gross ineptitude, and incompetence.

    The aforementioned General Lucian Truscott was not part of some Eisenhower group watching over Dulles. Nor was he the loyal General fearing for Eisenhower being embarrassed by a Dulles operation as Corson and Trento claim (Trento, “Secret History of the CIA”, page 494). What no one will tell you is Truscott was CIA all the way, and a close associate of Dulles. He was a no bullshit guy, and he wouldn’t have taken any crap from a minor league politician like PB. In his biography, “Dog Face Soldier”, the Zhou operation is discussed (Page 281), but there is no mention of Corson’s stroll on the green with Bush. Which Truscott would certainly have heard about; indeed, there is no mention of PB anywhere in the book.

    As said, there are no credible sources anywhere for PB’s ascension to Eisenhower’s inner intelligence sanctum. Corson is the alpha and omega on the issue, and as we have seen the man is someone to be extremely cautious of. None of the (or for that matter the worst) studies of the CIA mention PB, nor do any of the intelligence investigations of the 70’s. Moreover, the “worst” point really says something about Trento, and Hankey on this PB angle. How bad does one have to be to get smashed by Phil Nelson? I’ll say something for his horrific “LBJ did it” book (which I have the equally horrific job of reviewing). That fool never went down this road either.

    Prouty, another of Hankey’s misquoted and abused heroes, appeared to be interested in, but generally paid PB little notice. This is significant since his insights into Dulles and the CIA, and the Cold War is extensive. Moreover, Prouty’s work on Dulles is amongst his most verifiable, valuable, and accurate work. I’d trust him way before Corson, yet oddly Hankey does not. Yet, if we take Hankey to his most pathetic extreme. Is he now saying people like Prouty are wrong for not buying into the PB kingpin angle?

    Don’t worry, he will make up some absurd and lame excuse. Please read on as I have a lovely little angle – ton (pardon the pun) he can use for free.

    Forget Hankey, Remember Angleton

    Everyone is overlooking the fact that Corson’s book came out in 1977 at the time when the HSCA was convening. It was also some months after Bush retired from as DCI of the CIA. So let us look at what Angleton was doing.

    • Corson hooked Trento up with Angleton. Via this relationship, the story of Hunt in Dealey Plaza trying to prevent a Russian hit was let slip.
    • During the HSCA, Angleton was also fooling around with Epstein pressuring George DeMohrenschildt to go with an oil men plot.
    • Trento, unwittingly or not, created another layer to the Prescott Bush intelligence guru angle by quoting a dubious story by an old mate.

    Ironically, while GHWB was CIA, DeM was contacting him to call off Angleton’s harassment campaign. GHWB effectively gave him his burn notice. Yet, being a master plotter and shooter GHWB decided to keep his contact with DeM in the records. Clever guy that Bush isn’t he? Hankey drops the GHWB dart gun in Hoover’s office angle to make him an arrested shooter in the depository (amongst other hilarity discussed in Parts 1-3). The aforementioned lack of documentation for Bush being in Eisenhower’s intelligence apparatus will lead some excitable folk like John to say documents have been destroyed. The reality is if an acolyte of Angleton like Corson is pimping Bush with next to no evidence, he is clearly not doing it for the cause of truth.

    However, JH will likely now seize the opportunity to leap in, as there is an angle here. Furthermore, seeing as JH likes debating inanimate recordings and putting words in people’s mouths they never said, I have taken it upon myself to have this little debate. Unlike JH, I have even given him the last word.

    Seamus Coogan’s point of view concerning Angleton, Corson and PB.

    “Angleton was probably making a veiled threat to Bush, via this phoney story to enforce on GHWB how far back his ties to the agency really went. Bush was moving into the political sphere and in years would be the vice President. His CIA role would always bug him. Angelton knew all the scabs to pick. Yet, it was not just GHWB (who obviously feared Angleton immensely, by the way) Angleton targeted. His limited hangout stooges took punts right across the bow of U.S politics and intelligence. Not all of his targets necessarily had anything to do with JFK. Angleton, was involved in and knew of numerous criminal activities across the gamut of Washington and beyond.”

    John Hankey’s take on Angleton, Corson and PB

    “Angleton, like Hoover, also knew those Bush scumbags killed Kennedy. So what does he do? He tells Corson; that’s he does. And by doing that he’s saying to Bush “I know you killed JFK you little bastard. And I know your Nazi Dad was really running the CIA. Why? Because I was working for Dulles, and we all knew about PB’s secret security group he ran for Eisenhower.”

    Were this one of his God-awful videos, one can imagine the shooting script. Cue: Cheap, shitty, Flash animations of Angleton with a pythonesque mouth jabbering away. Fade in picture of Bush family with Hitler moustaches, swastika,’s holding poorly photo shopped dildo’s in their hands. I shall leave it up to you the reader to decide who is in charge of the facts.

    A Little Something Extra

    Here is part of Jim’s reply to JH, which also adds another nail in his arguments’ coffin. Whichever shape it may be. It is from their exchange at Murder Solved Forum:

    “As Seamus showed in his essay, there is no mention of this Bush for Dulles substitution in either of the two standard reference books on the CIA. So what does Hankey now do? He says that Prescott Bush was on a committee of inquiry in the Chou En Lai assassination affair. Dulles asked him for the status of the inquiry and Prescott declined to tell him. Therefore, Prescott was really the power behind Dulles at CIA. This is a totally illogical deduction. Every so often, there is an internal inquiry at CIA. During the Dulles years, there were, for example, the Bruce-Lovett report and the Lyman Kirkpatrick report on the Bay of Pigs. If Dulles has asked David Bruce, Robert Lovett or Kirkpatrick to divulge anything from their reports before it was done, and they had refused, would that mean that these three men were really in charge at CIA and not Allen Dulles? Of course not. The very question seems ridiculous. But these are the illogical lengths that Hankey will go to in twisting evidence to buttress his baseless theory.”


    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3


    “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”

    “Onwards and Downwards with John Hankey”

    Hankey/DiEugenio Debate Murder Solved

    DiEugenio’s Review Update of “Dark Legacy”

    Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum

  • Master Class with John Hankey, III:  The Podcast

    Master Class with John Hankey, III: The Podcast


    This session of Fetzer’s podcast begins with Fetzer and King discussing how CTKA didn’t show up for the debate. They have their reality we have our own. Regardless of their claims that we backed off, one can see here in Part II I would be more than happy to oblige them should JH be willing to participate with the aforementioned questions.

    11 Min: Outtake of “The Jim Garrison Tapes”

    Gary King adds a segment from John Barbour’s “The Garrison Tapes” production. It discusses the Bay of Pigs invasion and uses Garrison, Prouty, and David Phillips. The segment has nothing whatsoever to do with GHWB but it serves to make out as if Hankey will somehow defend and champion Garrison and Fletcher Prouty’s cause. The problem is we do not have any real problems with either. Once again, people familiar with CTKA and our material will see through this diversion.

    14 Min: “And he’s Away.”

    Important Note: Hankey says he will go through the evidence point by point. Yet he does not run through a list of the topics discussed or give the reader a general time – frame. This is standard for a presentation because that is what Hankey’s rambling approach is. To call this farcical approach a debate of any weight is a grievance against standard debate procedure.

    Straight out of the blocks Hankey begins discussing the trials and tribulations Gary had getting us on. Without including the CIA agent baiting mentioned before. Wow, I thought this was about GHWB? Anyhow, salivating with sarcasm he thanks Jim Di and his friends (namely Frank Cassano and I) for attacking him, because, we have forced him to look at his positions. Cassano is involved because Hankey accused Jim of being a CIA agent on the aforementioned James Corbett show. Cassano and I called in to complain. But Hankey now says that after his re-evaluation, he now realizes his position was actually much stronger than he realized. (Yes, and I am the reincarnation of Mao Zedong).

    He now uses his old “Jim amasses a ton of irrelevant information to discredit me and never confronts the main stuff” routine. Which is a new take on his “my evidence was incorrect but my conclusions were correct” bull. This is interesting on two counts. First, Jim did not write the article he is contesting. I did. Jim only edited that article and most of what he did was edit for length. The actual substance is about 90% my own. Second, as noted, he has now changed his defense. On the “Murder Solved Forum”, he admitted to almost all of the mistakes I pointed out in my piece. And he was even repetant about most of them. But his defense there was he was still correct on his main thesis about Bush. Which obviously sidesteps the issue of: how can a guy who makes so many errors about so many topics be correct about a major thesis? When in fact, the standard of this kind of thesis is: Extraordinary claims demand extraordianry evidence.

    15 Min: How Many Years have you Been Researching John?

    “I’ve been researching the assassination in a pretty serious fashion for about forty years.”

    This is a vast improvement from JH claiming he had been a researcher for 50 years four years before the 50th anniversary.

    “It took me nearly 40 years to find these memos; and nearly another ten to figure out what they mean. Believe me, I’m not bragging. But I am advocating patience”

    JH will try denying this by saying we made it up (have a look at the 56:57 passage for a stellar example). Sadly for JH its right here 40 + 10 = 50. (http://911blogger.com/node/19864)

    As I explained in my first essay, Hankey says he got involved in about 1999 after JFK Jr’s plane crash. IMDB say JFK II came out in 2003 (I said 2004 originally). Hankey’s movie is officially 12 years old and John has been perfecting his stand-up routine for 15. He had only spent some 2-3 years looking at the case before he decided come through the curtain and be a big star. That is a rather substantial difference of 25 years in terms of his 40 years of research.

    Hell, at least he has dropped his banal story about holding talks at different campuses concerning the JFK case. Judging by what he is spouting now, those discussions would have been awful (if they ever happened).

    15 – 16 Min: Memo Madness

    On top of all we have written about his insane memo fetish and the denouncement of JH’s interpretation by Joseph McBride the man who found the documents. I really do not need to go on. Except to say Bush was not the head of the CIA in 1972. His tenure was from January 1976 to 1977.

    Wait… did he just say the memo states that George Bush is the supervisor of the killers again? Damn, I was hoping he would announce that he was bullied and had an unhappy childhood. That might explain his over engaged fantasy world and his distortion of the JFK case.

    18 Min: No Thanks to CTKA

    Hankey mentions the famous memo Angleton let Trento have a peak at which placed Hunt in Dealey Plaza that day. However, he won’t say anything about us correcting him on the issue. He originally said Helms wrote the memo, not Angleton. Remember, this is from “Plausible Denial”, a book he supposedly pores over, and then recently called “Rush to Judgement”. Indeed, JH as one will see, has apparently co-opted a lot of CTKA material with which he used to lecture us about.

    19 Min: The Bush Dulles Meeting

    Hankey has a particular obsession for a dinner Prescott Bush had with Allen Dulles. I discussed this meeting in my last Hankey article. JH had told radio host James Corbett that the “Pilot Project” was about “George Bush and the Bay of Pigs.” However, he is now saying the project refers to George Bush setting up his oil company. Both are hilariously off the ball. The document is dated April 1963. That’s two years after the Bay of Pigs, and to cap it off Bush Jr had set up his oil business in 1953-54.

    It is no big deal Prescott Bush was friendly with Dulles. A whole heap of wealthy elitiest were friends with Allen. For he was one of the them; hence, why be does JH get so excited over the association with Prescott? Was Prescott as close to Dulles as Helms, Phillips, Hunt, Edwards, Truscott, Bissell, Cabell, Angleton or CD Jackson. That is an extremely closed group of pals. I would like to know how Bush interacted with this group?

    As I said, if Hankey is going to try and use bluestering langauge he can at least get his facts right and keep his story straight. He can also get real about the relationships Dulles had with his intelligence cronies. As one will note throughout the guy can do none of this.

    20 Min: Hunt and Bush

    JH says the Bay of Pigs was where Bush met E Howard Hunt. He has said this for a long time. If perchance, Bush was involved in some of the smaller aspects of anti-Castro operations the two could have met. We have never said it was impossible; nevertheless, when one has an editor (which Hankey does not) we cut little pieces that didn’t ram home the point in “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey.” I wrote…

    “The viewer may have noted that in skipping over the nefarious American activities in Latin America at the time. Hankey has presented absolutely no evidence of Hunt and Bush working together on anything other than the Bay of Pigs, and even that is an unproven and indirect relationship.”

    I should have kept the line “the two could have met” and then added “but even that is an unproven and indirect relationship” in my first Hankey piece. It is hardly an admission and it changes nothing. The problem we have is that Hunt was a big player, an out and out intelligence hard core operative. Bush maybe was essentially a CIA business liaison with political ambitions. The CIA, like any intel agency, uses compatmentalization and delegates agents and contractors based on their abilities. You don’t just become a covert operator, you get chosen.

    In the past Hankey has tried to intimate Bush would have been higher up the chain for the Bay of Pigs than Hunt. He seems to have dropped this angle (for the time being at least) preferring to now say Bush was in charge of Dallas (check out the inanity some 24:00 minutes in). He has even gone so far to say Bush was a shooter!

    Of course, listening to JH we had nothing to do with his modifying this aspect of the story. Nor did my first article have anything to do with his abandoning the notion Bush and Hunt used Hunt’s oil platform at Cal Say as the staging point for the Bay of Pigs. Now he has something else to learn from us. JH ludicrously believes the CIA launched the Bay of Pigs with only two boats “Houston” and “Barbara.” In fact, there were four others.

    Atlántico, Rio Escondido, Caribe, and Braggart.

    Furthermore, one does not need to misquote Mark Lane concerning what Fletcher Prouty said about the Bush/BOP connection to prove Hunt and Bush could have known each other.

    Hunt potentially bumping into Bush is no big deal.

    21 Min: The old “Why aren’t you Attacking Lane/Prouty it’s his/their fault” Line

    Hankey pulls this old chestnut out again. Our reasoning, as I have said before, is very simple. I ask the reader to look at Mark Lane’s history and record compared to JH’s. Lane has bought some good work to the table, as has Fletcher Prouty. Hankey on the other hand provides accidental comedy. We have criticized Lane before. Indeed, we did in the very first Hankey review and we were slightly disappointed with his last book. But further, neither Lane nor Poruty have ever taken the Bush/Hoover memo nearly as far as Hankey has. That is, to have made a whole film about it. If they would have, and it was anything like Hankey’s, we would have criticized them also.

    What is hilarious is not once has he turned on Jim and I saying “Why don’t you attack Paul Kangas, Jim Fetzer, Russ Baker, or Murder Solved. I got my stuff from those sources.”

    Thus, if Hankey were ever to debate (and trust me I am very game). We want his beloved fall back line “Why don’t CTKA attack blah, blah” to be one of the questions.

    24 Min: Bush out of the BOP in Charge of Dallas

    We know there is a decent chance Howard Hunt, and David Phillips were in or near Dealey Plaza that day. Hunt’s appearance came via the Angleton memo, and his ninety percent dubious testimonies in his book and to his son. David Phillips came thanks to his brother. One has to ask why this bunch of pipe swinging intelligence professionals would hand the Dallas project over to an office junior like George. Because that’s what JH is saying around about now.

    The Parrot Memo (http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/bushwarning.jpg) becomes a particular sticking point for JH here. Why isn’t there any FBI documentation of Hunt, and Phillips calling in for their alibis or calling up people to name as false suspects? Indeed, why didn’t they run advertisements they were in town giving speeches against fighting Communism? The whole scenario is juvenile and schoolyard. Bush, the supposed team leader in Dallas, has to call in with a fake report to create an alibi for killing the headmaster to his mother. That is what the whole thing plays out like.

    I would imagine the assassins of Kennedy being somewhat less accountable to the FBI than dear George appears to be. Hankey’s angle that Jim DiEugenio has kept quiet on Bush’s phone call is a boldfaced lie. Jim discussed and destroyed the Parrot Memo silliness and the idea of Bush leading a squad in his review of Russ Baker’s book.

    25 Min: Hankey’s Ever Changing Landscape and Bush a Shooter

    JH now discusses the Craig/Vaughn account he gave in his VT article concerning Bogus George arrest outside the Dal Tex building. He says he has known about the account for a long, long time. If so, he never used it until he got desperate for options. Adding new information is perfectly okay in a presentation like this but there are parameters. If JH had a shred of honesty, he would say to his listeners…

    “Jim and Seamus did not raise these points in their articles and interviews at the time but I would like to add…”

    He never does this and he brings up the Parrot memo. I never discussed the above Parrot phone call in my review because Hankey did not bring it up in the version of his documentary I watched.

    Anyhow, JH has added the Bush TSBD angle to his repertoire. Again, this was not in his catalogue of marital aids at the time I was first encountering him. CTKA reacted to JH, as we would to any bad JFK product. He got a bad review befitting the horror he created. He then got snarky (ridiculously so as you can see). Had he bought this dubious material up back then he would have received the same treatment he is getting now. So his attempts at intimating that somehow we missed something, for reasons stated above, fall flat.

    Anyhow, let us cap off a stunning barrage of fibs concerning CTKA, Bush’s arrest and his Parrott phone call. Hankey, almost beside himself with self-righteousness, now announces something absolutely shocking in its arrogance:

    “Bush was caught with a frigging gun in his hand.”

    Maybe this is just a figure of speech. I hope it is. For the man cannot be serious. Vaughn never said that to Craig. Indeed, we need a brief summary of Hankeyian events from 24-25 minutes to refocus, as there is so much wonderful, factual, and logical information to absorb.

    • Bush the leader of the hit squad is arrested with a gun outside the Dal Tex building. So was he shooting at JFK with a pistol?
    • Obtaining a quick release from the police GHWB then poses in a suit and tie outside the TSBD for a picture.
    • Then he leaps in a car and goes to the Blackstone Hotel in Tyler Texas where places a telephone call to the FBI concerning dissident James Parrott precisely ten minutes later.

    I am not saying all of this is impossible, noooo I would never say that. It is just incredibly improbable. I mean, take the third point. Tyler, Texas is something like 97 miles from Dallas. The driving time is about 90 minutes. Yet, this is John Hankey and therefore in his alternative universe, anything really is possible. As long as it makes George Bush a part of the JFK assassination.

    29 Min: Hunt a Sniper in China and Morales ran JM WAVE

    As one can see from the above rubric, this is turning into a vintage performance from the old master. Not even Saint John Hunt (his son) mentioned E. Howard training as a sniper in China and that guy can talk a lot of gunk. Sure Hunt was a killer, all active CIA black op types are. Nevertheless, if Hankey understood operations, he would know that to be a presidential level sniper Hunt would have had to be training every day for hours on end. Nothing in Hunt’s life and his activities in covert planning indicate the required marksmanship dedication.

    It appears judging by some of Hankey’s later comments concerning Bush being a , well any idiot can become an assassin. As for the ludicrous idea of Morales running JM WAVE, well that is to be expected of JH’s quest for accuracy and evidence. Unbeleivable carelessness. Ted Shackley ran JM WAVE.

    30 Min: Beatles Songs – Interval

    Thank you Jim Fetzer, your research is appalling but I have never appreciated the Beatles more.

    The first quarter is over, and it has been a torrid battle. Not between Jim and John. Hell, the chief hasn’t even made his appearance. It seems that Hankey has done a stellar job of beating himself up. If this train wreck does this to himself, one has to wonder what on Earth will happen when he battles samples of Jim?

    36 Min: Jim Finally Gets a Bite

    Prior to Jim’s debut JH insinuated that Jim is hard to follow because he goes off on tangents and jumps around topics. Hankey really needs to make like Michael Jackson and talk to the “Man in the mirror.” He also needs to “Beat it” because a number of the samples he has chosen are deliberately cut to make Jim come across as a blithering madman. Sadly, for JH there is only one blithering idiot and he is not moon walking out of this one.

    Anyhow, Jim discusses the problem of people over identifying suspects in the pictures and films of Dealey that day. When he mentions names, he is paying no particular attention to any one suspect. Nor is he actually saying none of them are there. It is a position bar one or two slight differences I share with Jim. Namely if we put everybody’s suspects into the mix, we have a grossly inefficient and rather silly conspiracy. Incidentally, the kind JH’s Godfather, JIm Fetzer, adores.

    37 Min: Hankey, Fletcher Prouty’s Brave Champion

    Hankey replies and states categorically that all the subjects Jim names are in there. However, it soon gets crazier. He discusses Ed Lansdale’s possible sighting as if he has been a long-time advocate. However, as with the Bush outside the TSBD his new Lansdale angle occurred well after my first and second articles, not to mention Jim’s BOR interview.

    As said in Part I, I am open to the Lansdale picture but I refuse go to the bank on any photo ID. JH now launches a grossly hypocritical diatribe about CTKA’s insensitivity towards all things Prouty. If CTKA is so insulting to the Colonel, I have to ask why Len has Jim on Black Ops Radio every other week. Surely Hankey knows Len’s background with Prouty? I mean Len had the charity to have Hankey on his show once. An interesting aside is a claim by Fetzer that Jim is running BOR. The result being Hankey and himself have been turfed. If Jim ran BOR, he certainly would not have Fetzer’s pal Mark DeValk on. Plain and simple, Len also got a lot of complaints about JH and Fetzer. Hence, it was a no brainer not to have them back. Further, Fetzer has begun to attack len in print. Why should Len genuflect to someone who is trashing him? Finally, Fetzer, with his participation in the zany OIP, his obsession with Zapruder film alteration, and his attacks on Tink Thompson, and his belief in the likes of Judith Baker and now Hankey and also Peter Janney, with all this, Fetzer has now occupied the very far out reaches of the JFK community. Black Op Radio is not about those Outer Limits. Its about what is provable in this case by the standard of civil law. That is, would a jury vote 9-3 in favor of the critical case in front of them. That later work of Fetzer, and now that of Hankey, does not qualify as such.

    40 Min: Sanctimonious + Insanity = Hypocrisy

    Hold the phone Martha! JH’s let loose another ripper. He’s scolding Jim for dismissing people without looking at the evidence adding, “Jim never does that.” My God, JH is pulling out all the hypocritical stops he can. The sound bites he has selected of course do not let Jim build any argument or evidence. JH also all forgets about the screeds of writing we have at CTKA dissecting his stuff, and on top of that, Jims Black Op Radio interview, and our stint on the Corbett Report. Jim by the way has written and edited four books. He has also written and edited hundreds of articles. If JH really wants proof there is a website called CTKA, the one you the reader are visiting right now, then he also needs to read this article an dmaybe, just maybe, learn something about journalistic standeards and th rules of logic and evidence.

    42-43 Min: Nixon Hired Hunt and other Fantasies

    What is interesting is that JH has dropped his inane Connally – Nixon angle. The one he assiduously pushed in his first documentary. Indeed, he was still pushing the Connally angle when Jim encountered Hankey over at Murder Solved.

    The Nixon angle is in my first article on JH. He completely ignores the points and evidence in that section, or does he? Hankey now says he agrees that Hunt set up Nixon, as if he has known that all along. If he did, surely a man of his integrity would have included this point in his documentaries. However, Hankey is not knowledgeable or honest. He only learned this from the original CTKA article I wrote and Jim’s interview. Hence, all JH can do now is scream something along the lines that “Nixon knew he was employing Hunt, because he hired him” Which is an illogical sentence to begin with.

    I wrote,

    For instance, Hankey states that Nixon brought Howard Hunt into the White House. Not accurate. As Jim Hougan points out in his brilliant and revolutionary Secret Agenda, prior to being hired by Charles Colson – not Nixon – Hunt worked at a CIA front called the Mullen Company. This was ostensibly an advertising and public relations firm. It was closely aligned with Howard Hughes. It was presided over at the time by CIA asset Robert Bennett. It was Bennett who mentioned Hunt’s name to Colson; Hunt then offered his services to him; and then Colson hired Hunt. (Hougan p. 33) It was an act that Colson came to regret. Why? Because Hunt appears to have been a CIA infiltrator in the White House who, along with James McCord, deliberately sabotaged the Plumbers at Watergate and helped collapse Nixon’s presidency. (ibid, pgs. 270-75)”

    It is clear Nixon learned of Hunt while he was at the Mullen Company, and then in the White House. And it is clear he did use him from time to time. And Nixon did mention Hunt on the White House tapes before the was hired. But there is still no proof or real evidence that Nixon hired Hunt. If I was Nixon and I was unsuspecting of his true motives too ultimately screw me I would have not done so as well. Hunt was a pro. Nevertheless, if Hankey was not such a knee jerk reactionary his comment concerning why Nixon would have a suspect in the Kennedy assassination hanging around the White House would actually merit discussion. Because it seems clear to some, like Hougan, that the CIA was infiltrating Nixon’s White House, the Plumbers, and CREEP. And as Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease have argued, one can make a credible thesis that many of the players invovled in murdering Kennedy, were also involved with removing Nixon.

    Indeed, Jim Hougan and Jim DiEugenio have discussed Watergate on Black Ops Radio. So too has Hankey’s new archenemy in his pantheon of victimisation Lisa Pease (check out Hankeys grand finale at 1H: 52).

    During JH sermon, about Nixon it is obvious he is once again trying to position CTKA to points of view we have either never held or have actually discussed before. Hence, we have another thing JH can add to his future arguments. Nixon apparently met Hunt during his trip to Latin America in 1958.

    44-45 Min: I Only Made Two Mistakes and CTKA Endorses Barr McClellan!

    JH is angry because Jim and I took the mickey out of him for his unfunny picture of Nixon holding a gun in Dealey Plaza. He begrudgingly admits this was a mistake and he should not have done it. Later he admits he made a mistake with the Nixon – Ruby memo (see below at 51-52 minutes). Declaring he only made these two mistakes. However, he will not tell you he has dropped his classic Prescott Bush funded Nixon into the White House gag. Not to mention a misdated photo he has of them shaking hands with Nazi armbands. Indeed, I spent over some 1000+ words explaining JH’s Nixon follies. He also won’t tell the reader that on his website he has a version of his debate with Jim in which he omits Jim’s post outlining some 20 errors he noted in the first half of JH’s JFK II. I mentioned this in my follow up article some years ago.

    He then asks what Nixon was doing in Dallas if not to kill JFK. Well Johnny Boy, Nixon was in Dallas for a Pepsi Cola Bottlers Convention. There was very little hoopla at all. He was not there merely to give speeches and bump Kennedy off as Hankey implied. Nixon’s comment about Johnson and his removal off the JFK ticket was essentially in passing to the press. Nixon could have made his statements anywhere; nevertheless, I personally think Nixon was not there by accident or by his design either. Hence, his presence that day provided another additional layer of mystery. Essentially, he was a red herring.

    CTKA Endorses the Johnson Hypothesis

    I thought this deserved a title. Simply because it is so ludicrous one must take note. Neither Jim nor I have ever fully advocated for the Kennedy ticket dumping Johnson in 1964. That is really up in the air as the sources for his scandals at the time have been poor and compromised. We have no doubt Johnson was dodgy to a degree. However, what Texas politician of the era, bar the odd Ralph Yarbrough, was not? As much of a liability as he was, LBJ was essential for Kennedy’s success in the South. Jim and I have written about this ad nauseam. Hankey, for the umpteenth time, appears to be lifting information off us and trying to lecture Jim about issues long known to CTKA.

    It is a shame he is so dodgy because he makes the point about Barr McClellan’s ties to GWB, a point of view people have. This is actually a clever use of the information I got from Alex Constantine’s site. I mentioned it in my article on Alex Jones. However, this was after apparently reading my article on Alex Jones (Hankey is not a good enough researcher to find this sort of good information himself). He then seemingly babbles on about Jim and I endorsing Barr McClellan. We have never endorsed McClellan. Nor any of the recent LBJ did it cul de sacs. Indeed, we have numerous articles discussing why we do not.

    Therefore, why is Jim Fetzer the kingpin of all the worst LBJ did it dross, endorsing Hankeys stance? He clearly hates us enough to have Hankey dump on his argument. Clever guy that Jim Fetzer. A man who has clearly lost his was from his former academic standards. Now, apparently, the end justifies the means.

    51-52 Min: Why Doesn’t Jim Attack Prouty

    It’s time for the old “Why do they always pick on me” routine. Hankey says he got the bogus Nixon – Ruby memo from Prouty. So why aren’t we attacking Prouty? Well, it is for the same reason we don’t go for Lane. Prouty has enriched the case, not detracted from it. The man could make one or two mistakes; he earned that right. Hankey has not earned that privilege and he likely never will. Furthermore, JH is responsible for the information he chooses to use. His deferment of responsibility is very immature and unprecedented in the field. One is not supposed to pass on questionable material, no matter who the source is. A true critical thinker cross checks materials that seem to good to be true.

    56:57 Min: Hankey’s Implausible Denial (You Have to Read This Folks)

    Now, until here, there have been some jaw dropping and hilarious moments. Nevertheless, this is the highlight of the entire charade. Hankey now plays an important segment of Jim’s BOR interview. This discusses Hankey’s ineptitude concerning Allen Dulles and his deep background in the spy trade.

    “I am not sure what it is that he’s (Jim) trying to say here, I mean besides that I’m incredibly ignorant, and that is his main point which is always his main point, always.”

    JH is correct about something: he is “incredibly ignorant.” He then rambles on about Dulles getting the CIA job, only because of his Nazi ties. This belittles the sound research many others have done concerning Dulles’ post WWII background. JH says these facts are niggling little annoyances that do not apparently amount to much. Nevertheless, JH’s actions at the 57 minute, mark indicate he took these niggling facts rather seriously.

    Hankey plays an excerpt from Jim’s interview in which Jim quotes Hankey from my piece.

    “Prescott Bush is the guy who during WWI was with Army Intelligence. Dulles was not with army intelligence during WWI and it’s a little bit surprising that he would be put in charge of the CIA instead of Prescott, given that they are more or less parallel in their power up until that time.”

    Hankey abruptly states …

    “He’s making that quote up! But never mind let’s move on.”

    I quoted Hankey directly from Black Op Radio on show 424, May 2009. The show is in Len’s archives. Why on Earth did he choose that particular statement and then act as he did? Was it to try to wound Jim’s credibility, or to save his own? Either way, he not only shoved a foot in his mouth, but he shoved the other in there also. And why did Fetzer accept this at face value?

    58:30 Min: If the Head of the CIA is a Front why the Boner about GHWB

    JH is angling for his old Prescott Bush was the power behind the throne line. To be honest he has not bought PB up yet; however, he starts pondering aloud inane stuff like “The head of the CIA is a front”, he is not naming names but he is clearly saying this about Dulles as he has used this line many times before in relation to Prescott, and he discusses him at 1H:02.

    If the head of the CIA is a puppet then why does he make such a huge deal about GHWB and his one-year gig as DCI? Furthermore, Prescott Bush must have been tripping on acid to let his son, whom never trained as a sniper take a shot at President Kennedy, as Hankey now insinuates. Indeed, if you hark back to 24-45, minute mark GHWB’s shooting at Kennedy was not the only dumb thing George did that day. He says his hypothesis “is a can of worms.” I can think of a few things to call it and it is not worms; thus, I can only wonder what Russ Baker is thinking. Baker tried vainly to bring credibility to the Bush did it hypothesis. I wonder how he feels to have his efforts smeared by JH.

    1H: 02 Min: Hankey and Zhou En-Lai

    This is very long so I have made it into a separate article, which can be found here [need link here]. Thank the lord for the Beatle interlude once again.

    1H: 30 Min: Hoover Beatles.

    The next 12 minutes or so is a bizarre ode to J Edgar Hoover. Hankey has long believed the CIA pressured Hoover concerning the Kennedy assassination. CTKA has known and understood all of the angles JH discusses, but more besides. JH has never read Anthony Summers work (and that’s just an entree). Thus, he fails to understand what 99 percent of researchers believe that Hoover did not need much cajoling to participate in the cover up. He also tries to swing it that CTKA endorsed the idea of Hoover as a main plotter. That might be good enough for Peter Dale Scott, Phil Nelson, or Jim Fetzer; but that type of analysis is not good enough for CTKA.

    1H:42 Min: “This Guy is so Full of Shit”

    So says the master of the art form after a snippet in which Jim disagrees with JH delusions about the memo. Hankey retorts “If Bush was contacted it was because he was in charge of the anti-Castro Cubans.” Remember what McBride said to me at the end of Part I folks. I don’t need to remind you all that we have written.

    1H:44 Min: David Morales JM Wave Boss Again

    Morales was good pals with his boss Ted Shackley. Hankey’s pals at Murder Solved must be blue in the face explaining this sort of stuff to him. They have a write up about him here.

    1H:48 Min: “All This Shit About Dulles”

    “Jim has gone on with all of this shit about whether Dulles really had any intelligence background or not I mean what has that got to do with anything? And when do we get to the real substance of the movie the mountain of evidence I am putting together”

    There are a lot of fools out there dribbling all manner of gibberish. Nevertheless, even individuals as inept as Fetzer do not find Dulles’ extensive intelligence background irrelevant. It was not Dulles’ ties to the Nazis that got him the DIrectorship. It was his long experince as an intel officer in World War I and II, the plan he submitted to Walter B. Smith to reorganize the CIA after World War 2 (which prompted Smith to make him Deputy DCI), and finally Smith falling ill and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, convincing Eisenhower to make Dulles the new Director. All of this material is in the record on the several books about the Dulles brothers. But not only has Hankey not read them. He actually seems to think its not even important for him to do so! And its arrogance and presumptuousness like this that allowed him to make over 40 errors of fact in the first version of his film. As for JH’s mountain of evidence he is putting together: he has to be kidding. He has not structured even a hillock.

    1H:49 Min: “What the Fuck”

    Hankey declares “What the fuck?” after a brief snippet of Jim explaining that Bush’s links to the agency and Cubans were hardly unique amongst the blue blood set. Jim names Clare Booth Luce and Bill Pawley as examples. This leaves an exasperated JH bellowing…“ But these guys didn’t get mentioned in this memo.” He forgets the fact George Bush does not have his name redacted. This indicates to anyone with half a brain he was hardly a CIA higher up. Since Hoover was very sensitive to such matters. Even if he was, it is hardly sensitive information if Captain William Edwards of the DIA was running the Cubans? Was Agent F.T Forsyth? They are mentioned as well. Also, if Hankey saying that there were no communications at all with the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, about any Cuban renegade attack on Castro to any backers of any Cuban cadres in the wake of JFK’s death?

    If Bush was head of the CIA in 1976, why didn’t he destroy this memo? Surely, someone of his all seeing, all evil pedigree would eradicate all vestiges of his earlier wrongdoings running the Anti-Castro Cuban programme. Hell the guy couldn’t even get rid of his banal correspondence with George DeMohrenschildt. I have to say it is rather odd Hankey has not bought that old chestnut up yet. Is it because CTKA crushed that dream before he could grab it?

    1H:52 Minutes: Hankey’s Last Stand

    JH has been building for this for close to two hours, or has it been his entire life?

    What follows is a ramble that will echo through eternity. Its power is such that it conjures up an image of an illusionist actually believing he is the Human Torch, and then setting himself alight, and leaping off the TSBD to fly away. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No folks it is just JH crashing and burning. Again.

    Anyhow, for your enjoyment, here are the highlights of what he screamed on the way down…

    Fuck you Jim DeYouhayneo! For Making me Think.

    “Fuck you Jim Deyouhayneo! He is not honest, he, he is not… an honest researcher and you shouldn’t pay any attention to anything that he says except that he may occasionally raise a point that is in fact worth investigating.

    And in fact makes us think about something harder than perhaps we have in the first place.”

    Hankey is essentially saying, “Fuck you Jim for making me think.” It is certainly an odd way of showing one’s appreciation. But shouldn’t John have done some thinking before he put together his film. And again, the article was not Jim’s. It was mine. Jim was just reading it.

    Hoover: the Subtle Hero of the Bush Memo

    “But Hoover wrote one memo and the memo that he wrote named George Bush and frankly I just love that he managed to write it in such a way he made it so innocent that it survived.”

    Wow, so is he actually saying that the document reads as it looks. If so, that is a complete somersault. He is now saying Hoover carefully coded the message so it could slip through Bush’s fingers. It’s a message only JH can see.

    Mark Lane Never Heard of GHWB

    “Mark Lane said he saw this memo when it was first discovered and he didn’t make anything of it because he had never heard of George Bush before. It didn’t draw Mark Lane’s attention in the least… but that’s why it survived.”

    Okay, Mark Lane is a prominent political and civil rights activist and lawyer. JFK is only one of his many interests. He has had more scrapes with the CIA than JH has had hot dinners. Yet Hankey is trying to say in the period 1985-1988 a time when knowledge of the document was growing, Lane had never heard of the ex-head of the CIA or George Bush, Reagan’s second, and Presidential candidate. With that logic, JH probably thinks Mondale won. He now returns to Hoover’s cunning ploy…

    Jim is “Full of Shit,” but Hoover is “Frigging Brilliant

    “Now if Hoover was in on the assassination why did he write this memo and well… Jim is just so full of shit. I can’t believe it. He does draw our attention into that question I think, at least he drew my attention to that question. That I haven’t thought about in a long time. Why did Hoover write this memo? You know that when Hoover died his files were immediately seized and destroyed. If he had put it in his files it wouldn’t have survived but he made it sound innocent and he sent it out again to all these people. I think the guys frigging brilliant.”

    I couldn’t be bothered telling the reader that earlier he had congratulated Hoover’s investigative ability. Something considered a joke in the modern era to all but JH. Nonetheless, we can see he is very keen on Hoover’s subtle abilities that once again all but JH the mystic can see or translate. But beyond that, consider this a bi tmore deeply. Is Hankey really saying what he seems to be saying? That Hoover wanted to expose the actual plotters of JFK’s death? Again, this is what happens when writers leap into the sea of the JFK case without doing their homework. Or even going to the corner library to pick up a book or two.

    Nothing could be furhter from the truth in this case. From the first day, Hoover was hard at work molding the cover up from the ground up. He never let up the pressure on framing Oswald. Not from the beginning until the end. At the end, he was trying to disguise what the Sylvia Odio story really meant. To go through every instance in which he did this would take a small book. In fact, many people think that the exposure of the FBI cover up in this case was the beginning of the end of Hoover’s impenetrable image as a crime stopper. (Of which, most would say he never really was. Except maybe Johnny Boy.) But now, all of that work by say Tony Summers and Curt Gentry will have to reevaluated. Because John Hankey says the FBI memo has a much deeper meaning than anyone has ever given it. Even Joe McBride. Hoover was talking in codes I guess. Codes that only Hankey could decipher. And maybe Fetzer.

    John Hankey the Measure of Rationality

    Then comes something that really had to be heard to be believed. Consider the following:

    “Generally speaking I try to avoid saying things that I think that are so out there that they will reflect badly on everything else that I say.”

    Can Hankey really have this little self-knowledge? I hate to say it John but that horse has already bolted. And it left you on the ground. Indeed anybody who has read Parts I & II of this article, and three others at CTKA would see the bizarreness of the above statement. It was nice to know that before JH made this hilarious comment, you agreed with Jim that your theory of Bush threatening Hoover in his office with a dart gun was irresponsible and stupid.

    The Ridiculous CTKA Conspiracy

    But he is not done. Hankey’s final tirade accuses CTKA of launching a conspiracy against him. He bizarrely claims that different versions of his videos were not available at the time I wrote my first article. As you will see I am in awe of JH saying this stuff. It is a sociopathic, face saving and utterly dishonest argument. As one will see, JH himself was the very person who sent out his documentary and created different versions of it.

    The Ring Master Lisa Pease Part 1

    Why Hankey gets angry about anyone distributing his videos is curious. Is he secretly ashamed? He alleges Lisa Pease disseminated the video. This begs the question: why would Lisa want to promote anything of his. She, like any CTKA contributor, thinks Hankey’s work sucks. Was she distributing the video to discredit JH?

    Now again, please sit down before you read this wild conspiracy theory. It makes Lamar Waldron look like an amateur.

    For Hankey now claims Lisa then sent the video to Jim, and during his interview with Len, Lisa was handing him notes.( Lisa and Jim were in different parts of LA that night.) Yet, despite Jim’s reviewing his lame “Dark Legacy”, he then claims Jim has never seen his movie “JFK II”? What on earth is he trying to suggest here? If Jim actually sat down and watched the film, he would agree with JH? Wow, that is incredible logic considering Jim has seen both “JFK II” and “Dark Legacy.” Jim edited my articles and rechecked my facts. Threefore, it is impossible for him not to have watched JFK II. And he did at at my instigation, not Lisa’s. Hankey is not just delusional about whe he is, he is now creating wild paranoid plots to distract from the shoddiness of his own work.

    “For the record, and to repeat what jim has said on the air, this is how I came to write my first essay on Hankey’s film. One night I began to send Jim a series of questions based upon my viewing of Hankey’s documentary. Even though I was not as well versed in Kennedy matters back then, I sensed some of the facts in the film were either wrong or hyperbolic. So I sent a series of questions about these disputed matters to Jim so he could settle the matters. After about four of my queries I saw that indeed, my doubt was well founded since Jim, in each instance, stated that the info I was sending to him was wrong. Finally, in exasperation, he said, “Where are you getting this malarkey?”

    I told him: “Its from Hankey’s film.”

    Jim then watched the film, and we decided that someone had to critique this since it would mislead to many people. This is one of the functions of CTKA. To expose flatulence and pretension on both sides: the Krazy Kid Oswald types, and those who advocate ill founded conspiracies.

    He Doesn’t Mention Prison Planet

    There were five people in total he sent the movie to Lisa Pease, his brother, Kris Millegan, and Wim Dankbaar. He plays dumb and say’s “I think I mentioned them all.” The fifth was Alex Jones and Prison Planet. If not JH is probably wondering how their logo got on the front of his production.

    Lisa Pease Ring Master Part II (This is Even More Nutty).

    He now says I, the writer of the article that drove him mad, I am just a straw man in all of this. Apparently there is no way I could have seen it without Lisa sending it to me. In other words, I was part of Lisa’s conspiracy.

    According to the Wayback Machine, the version of JH’s JFK II that I used to review “JFK II” and linked to Google Video, has now disappeared rather suspiciously. One can see it had been posted to Google Video in at least 2006. (See the screen shot below)

    Table 2: Hankey’s Deleted Video Posted on 2006

    seamus 02

    On the Education Forum there is a post dating from August 2006 from a guy called Wade Rhodes discussing the very “JFK II” video. Rhodes, by the way, had used the same link I had. It is also important to note what Rhodes asks concerning Alex Jones and the Prison Planet disclaimer on Hankey’s earlier versions.

    Table 3: JFK II-2007 on Google Video

    seamus 03

    Anyhow, just do a Google video search for “JFK II: The Bush Connection.” The earliest YouTube entry now appears to be Jan 9, 2007. Note underneath there are different versions by different people. Furthermore, there is one from Mar 12, 2009.

    All of the above dates I have discussed, 2006, 2007, and March 2009 are way, way, way before I began my first Hankey take down, which CTKA published in early 2010. I had worked on JH for 3-4 months prior, in 2009. I have no idea how it got viral in the period 2003-2006. Jones’ operation was still growing. One presumes it was posted to a forum or linked to his webpage at some point. Some crazed people obviously liked it and bingo.

    Two major problems

    1. JH has accused us at one time or another of circulating unreleased editions that we somehow apprehended. As seen, JH has had “JFK” out and about for some time. Who created all the different versions that were available before September-October 2009 when I began? Were JH’s fans so concerned about JH’s content they made their own subtractions, or were they concerned about time? I don’t know. But the idea of Lisa Pease, cutting up JH’s video’s to make a better presentation or decrease its length is absurd (see the different lengths below)
    2. Problem one, assumes JH was not also promoting JFK II prior to my starting to write my first CTKA essay in September-October. Noooo JH never promoted JFK II at all according to the great man. It was us, Lisa Pease or CTKA.

    Table 4: Different Lengths of “JFK” all Publically Available

    seamus 04

    Well it turns out John Hankey was promoting JFK II. On Black Op Radio twice circa 2005, 2006, and also 2009. It was the latter recording on BOR (show # 424 that eventually helped spur me into what I am still doing now: correcting the ersatz record of JH.

    Conclusion on JH’s JFK II Videos

    People reply to criticism in different ways. Some take it upon themselves to improve. Some take it personally and resent the message. Hankey is in the latter group. For he now maligns Lisa Pease to cover his own behind. He has been less than candid about who distributed the videos since this information seems to be in plain sight. He seems to have edited the videos himself on the advice of others. John Hankey was also promoting his film two years before he released it. I am sure he made noises elsewhere, but I cannot be bothered tracking them down. Nothing should surprise me about John Hankey anymore – but this “CTKA conspiracy angle” is bizarre behavior even for him.

    Here Endeth the Lesson

    Well thankfully, it is over. Fetzer as deluded as ever, and without a trace of sarcasm, now announces, “Hankey prevailed in this exchange.” The reality is one can clearly see JH was defeated by mere voice samples. In his battle with an inanimate adversary, one can see he manufactured events, and corrupted CTKA’s own research for his own means. He then exaggerated, abused, smeared and manufactured again.

    I wish this was all over and initially it was fun. But it is extremely tedious and I feel sorry for Hankey.

    I will catch you up when I discuss JH and Zhou En – Lai.


    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 4


    “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”

    “Onwards and Downwards with John Hankey”

    Hankey/DiEugenio Debate Murder Solved

    DiEugenio’s Review Update of “Dark Legacy”

    Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum