The
Warren
Commission
came to the conclusion that John
F. Kennedy
was assassinated by a lone gunman,
Lee
Harvey Oswald. This theory
has been supported by several other investigators including Arlen
Specter, Walter
Cronkite,
Dan
Rather, Hugh
Aynesworth,
Gerald
Posner, John
McAdams
and Kenneth
A. Rahn.
As
Lee
Harvey Oswald
could
not fire his bolt-action rifle fast enough to wound John
F. Kennedy
and
John
Connally with
separate shots, the Warren
Commission
argued
that a single bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the neck and exited
from the throat just below the Adam's apple. The same bullet entered
Connally's back, exited from his chest, went completely through his
right wrist, and lodged in his left thigh.
Open
Debate on the Kennedy Assassination
(G1)
Warren
Commission Report
(September, 1964)
(1) The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor
Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository. This determination is based upon
the following:
Witnesses
at the scene of the assassination saw a rifle being fired from the
sixth-floor window of the Depository Building, and some witnesses
saw a rifle in the window immediately after the shots were fired.
The
nearly whole bullet found on Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland
Memorial Hospital and the two bullet fragments found in the front
seat of the Presidential limousine were fired from the 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository
Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
The
three used cartridge cases found near the window on the sixth floor
at the southeast corner of the building were fired from the same rifle
which fired the above - described bullet and fragments, to the exclusion
of all other weapons.
The
windshield in the Presidential limousine was struck by a bullet fragment
on the inside surface of the glass, but was not penetrated.
The
nature of the bullet wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor
Connally and the location of the car at the time of the shots establish
that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential
limousine, striking the President and the Governor as follows:
President
Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of
his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing
a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President
was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear
portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.
Governor
Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of
his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest,
exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his
right wrist and entered his left thigh where it caused a superficial
wound.
There
is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple
Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.
(2)
The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.
(3)
Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission
to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very
persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet
which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's
wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors
have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability
but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission
that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's
wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School
Book Depository.
(4)
The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally
were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. This conclusion is based upon the
following:
The
Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 - millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots
were fired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald.
Oswald
carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of
November 22, 1963.
Oswald,
at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which
the shots were fired.
Shortly
after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to
Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth
floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle
to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots
were fired.
Based
on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination,
the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald's
capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the
assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission
has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a
rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.
Oswald
lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive
matters.
Oswald
had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army)
on April 10, 1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human
life.
What
evidence does the Warren Commission provide to support the statement:
"shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally
were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of
the Texas School Book Depository"?
(G2)
Walter
Cronkite,
The Warren
Report: Part 3, CBS Television
(27th June, 1967)
Tonight we've asked
if there was a conspiracy involving perhaps Officer Tippit, Jack Ruby,
or others... On the basis of the evidence now at hand at least, we
still can find no convincing indication of such a conspiracy. If we
put those three conclusion together, they seem to CBS News to tell
just one story - Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and for reasons all his
own, shot and killed President Kennedy. It is too much to expect that
the critics of the Warren Report will be satisfied with the conclusions
CBS News has reached, any more than they were satisfied with the conclusions
the Commission reached.
Concerning the events of
November 22nd, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, the report of the Warren Commission
is probably as close as we can ever come now to the truth.
Why did
Walter Cronkite and CBS news believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted
alone?
(G3)
Dan
Rather, The
Warren Report: Part 3, CBS
Television (27th June, 1967)
I'm contented with
the basic finding of the Warren Commission, that the evidence is overwhelming
that Oswald fired at the President, and that Oswald probably killed
President Kennedy alone. I am not content with the findings on Oswald's
possible connections with government agencies, particularly with the
CIA. I'm not totally convinced that at some earlier time, unconnected
with the assassination, that Oswald may have had more connections
than we've been told about, or that have been shown. I'm not totally
convinced about the single-bullet theory. But I don't think it's absolutely
necessary to the final conclusion of the Warren Commission Report.
I would have liked more questioning, a more thorough going into Marina
Oswald's background. But as to the basic conclusion, I agree.
What aspect
of the lone assassin theory did Dan Rather have most doubts about?
Why did it not stop him from believing this theory?
(G4)
Michael
Kurtz, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From
a Historians Perspective (1982)
The most persuasive
of the eyewitnesses, Howard Leslie Brennan, swore that the man he
saw fire from the window was "standing up." Photographs
of the building taken seconds before and after the shots reveal the
window open only one foot from the bottom. Since an individual standing
up and firing, as Brennan testified, would have been compelled either
to fire through glass or to shoot with the rifle at knee height, the
commission conceded that "although Brennan testified that the
man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably
he was either sitting or kneeling."
The commission relied
heavily on Brennan's testimony, since he was the only eyewitness who
saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the shots. According to the commission,
Brennan described the man to the Dallas police, who then broadcast
a description of the suspect at 12:45 p.m., fifteen minutes after
the assassination. Since Brennan was the only witness who saw the
actual gunman, his description must have been the basis for the police
broadcast. Yet the commission failed to explain how Brennan could
have estimated the height, weight, age, and physical build of the
man over one hundred feet away, "sitting or kneeling" behind
a concrete ledge and a double thickness of glass.
The commission further
failed to investigate Brennan's testimony that he gave his description
to Secret Service Agent Forrest V. Sorrels, about ten minutes after
the last shot. Since Sorrels did not arrive back at the scene until
twenty to twenty-five minutes later, Brennan's memory seems faulty.
Sorrels, moreover, himself testified that while riding in the motorcade
he had a clear view of the sixth-floor window of the building and
saw no one there. Thus, the commission chose to ignore the testimony
of Sorrels, a professionally trained observer, which clearly exculpated
Oswald and instead chose to believe the testimony of Brennan, which
contains many contradictions.
Why did
the Warren Commission rely heavily on the testimony of Howard Brennan?
Why does Michael Kurtz believe the Warren Commission was wrong to
rely on Brennan's testimony?
(G5)
Roger
Craig
was interviewed by David W. Belin on behalf of the Warren
Commission on 1st
April, 1964.
David Belin: Now, about
how many minutes was this after the time that you had turned that
young couple over to Lemmy Lewis that you heard this whistle?
Roger Craig: Fourteen or
15 minutes.
David Belin: Was this, you mean, after the shooting?
Roger Craig: After the...
from the time I heard the first shot.
David Belin: All right.
Your heard someone whistle?
Roger Craig: Yes. So I
turned and saw a man start to run down the hill on the north side
of Elm Street, running down toward Elm Street.
David Belin: And, about
where was he with relation to the School Book Depository Building?
Roger Craig: Directly across
that little side street that runs in front of it, He was on the south
side of it...
David Belin: And where was he with relation to the west side of the
School Book Depository Building?
Roger Craig: Right by the...
well, actually, directly in line with the west corner... the southwest
corner,
David Belin: He was directly
in line with the southwest corner of the building?
Roger Craig: Yes.
David Belin: And he was
on the south curve of that street that runs right in front of the
building there?
Roger Craig: Yes.
David Belin: And he started
to run toward Elm Street as it curves under the underpass?
Roger Craig: Yes ; directly
down the grassy portion of the park.
David Belin: All right.
And then what did you see happen?
Roger Craig: I saw a light-colored
station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston...
actually, it was nearly in line with him. And the driver was leaning
to his right looking up the hill at the man running down.... And the
station wagon stopped almost directly across from me. And... the man
continued down the hill and got in the station wagon. And I attempted
to cross the street. I wanted to talk to both of them. But the...
traffic was so heavy I couldn't get across the street. And hey were
gone before I could...
David Belin: Could you
describe the man that you saw running down toward the station wagon?
Roger Craig: Oh, he was
a white male in his twenties, five nine, five eight, something like
that; about 140 to 150; had kind of medium brown sandy hair... you
know, it was like it'd been blown... you know, he'd been in the wind
or something-- it was all wild-looking; had on blue trousers...
David Belin: What shade
of blue? Dark blue, medium or light?
Roger Craig: No; medium,
probably; I'd say medium. And, a light tan shirt, as I remember it.
David Belin: Anything else
about him?
Roger Craig: No; nothing
except that he looked like he was in an awful hurry.
David Belin: What about
the man who was driving the car?
Roger Craig: Now, he struck
me, at first, as being a colored male. He was very dark and had real
dark short hair, and was wearing a thin white-looking jacket, it looked
like the short windbreaker type, you know, because it was real thin
and had the collar that came out over the shoulder (indicating with
hands) like that... just a short jacket.
David Belin: You say that
he first struck you that way. Do you now think that he was a Negro?
Roger Craig: Well, I don't...
I didn't get a real good look at him. But my first glance at him...
I was more interested in the man coming down the hill... but my first
glance at him, he struck me as a Negro.... I drove up to Fritz' office
about, oh, after 5... about 5:30 or something like that and talked
to Captain Fritz and told him what I had saw. And he took me in his
office... I believe it was his office.... it was a little office,
and had the suspect setting in a chair behind a desk.... beside the
desk. And another gentleman, I didn't know him, he was sitting in
another chair to my left as I walked in the office. And Captain Fritz
asked me was this the man I saw and I said, "Yes," it was.
David Belin: All right.
Will you describe the man you saw in Captain Fritz' office?
Roger Craig: Oh, he was
sitting down but he had the same medium brown hair; it was still...
well, it was kinda wild looking; he was slender, and what I could
tell of him sitting there, he was... short. By that, I mean not myself,
I'm five eleven... he was shorter than I was. And fairly light build.
David Belin: Could you
see his trousers?
Roger Craig: No; I couldn't
see his trousers at all.
David Belin: What about
his shirt?
Roger Craig: I believe,
as close as I can remember, a T-shirt... a white T-shirt.
David Belin: All right.
But you didn't see him in a lineup? You just saw him sitting there?
Roger Craig: No; he was
sitting there by himself in a chair... off to one side.
David Belin: All right.
Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did
the suspect say?
Roger Craig: Captain Fritz
then asked.... "What about this station wagon?" And the
suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs
to Mrs. Paine"... I believe is what he said. "Don't try
to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
How does
Roger Craig's testimony raise doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted
alone?
(G6)
Harold
Weisberg,
Whitewash (1965)
The Commission was reconstructing
the crime, ostensibly to find out what happened, not to prove that
Oswald alone committed it. When the motorcade turned toward the Depository
Building on Houston Street, for several hundred feet there was a completely
unobstructed view of it from the sixth-floor window. The police photographs
and the forgotten Secret Service reconstruction of 1963 also show
this. There was not a twig between the window and the President. There
were no curves in that street, no tricky shooting angles. If all the
shots came from this window, and the assassin was as cool and collected
as the Report represents, why did he not shoot at the easiest and
by far the best target? Why did he wait until his target was so difficult
that the country's best shots could not duplicate his feat?
Look at
the drawing of Dealey Plaza. Do you agree
with Harold Weisberg about Houston Street? If so, why would the gunman
in the Texas Book Depository wait until the motorcade reached Elm
Street?
(G7)
Richard H. Popkin, The
New York Review of Books (28th July 1966)
In one of
Victor Serge’s last works, The Case of Comrade Tulayev,
written over fifteen years ago, the Russian equivalent of the Oswald
story is set forth. An alienated young man, unhappy with the many
aspects of his life in the Soviet Union - the food, his room, his
job, etc. - acquires a gun, and manages to shoot Commissar Tulayev
one night when he is getting out of a car. An extensive investigation
sets in, followed by an extensive purge. Millions of people are arrested
and made to confess to being part of a vast conspiracy against the
government. The actual assassin is, of course, never suspected, since
no one can imagine him as a conspirator. He continues to lead his
alienated unhappy life, while the government uncovers the great plot.
In contrast,
when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, a solution emerged within hours:
one lonely alienated man had done the deed all by himself. The investigation
by the Dallas Police and the FBI then proceeded to buttress this view,
and to accumulate all sorts of details about the lone assassin, some
false (like the murder rap), some trivial (like his early school records),
some suggestive (like the bag he carried into the Book Depository),
some convincing (like the presence of his rifle and the three shells).
From its origins in Dallas on the night of November 22, 1963, the
career of the theory of a single conspirator indicated that this was
the sort of explanation most congenial to the investigators and the
public (although the strange investigation of Joe Molina, a clerk
in the Book Depository, from 2 a.m. November 23 until the end of that
day, mainly for his activities in a slightly left-wing veterans’
organization, suggests a conspiratorial explanation was then under
consideration).
The Warren
Commission, after many months of supposed labor and search, came out
with an anticlimatic conclusion, practically the same as that reached
by the FBI in its report of December 9, 1963, except for details as
to how it happened. The Commission, clothed in the imposing dignity
of its august members, declared its conviction that one lone alienated
assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had indeed carried out the crime...
However,
the “official theory” was in many ways implausible. It involved
a fantastic amount of luck. If the FBI and Warren Commission reconstructions
were correct, Oswald had to get the rifle into the building without
attracting attention. Only two people saw him with a long package,
and none saw him with it or the rifle in the building. He had to find
a place from which he could shoot unobserved. The place, according
to the “official theory,” was observed until just a few
minutes before the shooting. He had to fire a cheap rifle with a distorted
sight, old ammunition, at a moving target in minimal time, and shoot
with extraordinary accuracy (three hits in three shots, in 5.6 seconds,
according to the FBI; two hits in three shots in 5.6 seconds, according
to the Commission). If the “official theory” of the Commission
is right, Oswald had no access to the rifle from mid-September until
the night before the assassination, and had no opportunity whatsoever
to practice for at least two months. Having achieved such amazing
success with his three shots, Oswald was then somehow able to leave
the scene of the crime casually and undetected, go home, and escape.
But for the inexplicable (according to the “official theory”)
Tippit episode, Oswald might have been able to disappear. In fact,
he did so after that episode, and only attracted attention again because
he dashed into a movie theater without paying.
The critics
have argued that the Commission’s case against Oswald, if it
had ever been taken to court, would have collapsed for lack of legal
evidence. A legal case would have been weakened by sloppy police work
(e.g., the failure to check whether Oswald’s gun had been used
that day), confused and contradictory reports by witnesses (e.g.,
the mistaken identification of Oswald by the bus driver), and questionable
reconstructions by the Commission (e.g., testing the accuracy of the
rifle with stationary targets). The Report (against the better judgment
of at least two of the Commission’s staff, Liebeler and Ball)
had to rely on some of the shakiest witnesses, like Brennan and Mrs.
Markham. It also had to impeach some of its best, like Wesley Frazier.
What
reasons does give Richard H. Popkin give for not believing the Warren
Commission report concerning the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy?
(G8)
Marina
Oswald, interviewed in San
Jose Mercury News (28th September, 1988)
Twenty-five years after the assassination of President Kennedy, Lee
Harvey Oswald's widow says she now believes Oswald did not act alone
in the killing.
''I think he was caught
between two powers - the government and organized crime,'' said Marina
Oswald Porter in the November issue of Ladies' Home Journal,
published Tuesday.
Testimony by Oswald's widow,
who married Dallas carpenter Kenneth Porter in 1965, helped the Warren
Commission conclude that a deranged Oswald acted alone in the Nov.
22, 1963, assassination.
''When I was questioned
by the Warren Commission, I was a blind kitten,'' she said. The commission,
appointed to investigate the assassination, concluded it was the work
of a single gunman, Oswald. But in 1979, the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, relying in part on acoustical evidence, concluded
that a conspiracy was likely and that it may have involved organized
crime.
Since then, Porter, 47,
has drawn new conclusions. ''I don't know if Lee shot him,'' she said.
''I'm not saying that Lee is innocent, that he didn't know about the
conspiracy or was not a part of it, but I am saying he's not necessarily
guilty of murder.''
''At first, I thought that
Jack Ruby (who killed Oswald two days after the assassination) was
swayed by passion; all of America was grieving,'' she said. ''But
later, we found that he had connections with the underworld. Now,
I think Lee was killed to keep his mouth shut.''
Porter said that in retrospect,
Oswald seemed professionally schooled in secretiveness, ''and I believe
he worked for the American government.''
''He was taught the Russian
language when he was in the military. Do you think that is usual,
that an ordinary soldier is taught Russian? Also, he got in and out
of Russia quite easily, and he got me out quite easily,'' said the
Russian-born Porter. She had emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1961
after marrying Oswald, who had defected to the Soviets and then changed
his mind and returned to the United States.
In the months preceding
the assassination, a man posing as Oswald reportedly appeared in several
public places in the Dallas area.
''I learned afterward that
someone who said he was Lee had been going around looking to buy a
car, having a drink in a bar. I'm telling you, Lee did not drink,
and he didn't know how to drive.
''And afterward, the FBI
took me to a store in Fort Worth where Lee was supposed to have gone
to buy a gun. Someone even described me and said I was with him. This
woman was wearing a maternity outfit like one I had. But I had never
been there,'' she said.
Porter said she hopes the
truth will emerge when the Warren Commission materials are declassified.
''Look, I'm walking through
the woods, trying to find a path, just like all of us,'' she said.
''The only difference is, I have a little bit of insight. Only half
the truth has been told.''
The evidence
provided by Marina Oswald after the assassination helped to identify
Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer. Why, according to this article, did
Marina change her mind about her husband? Are there any other reasons
why Marina told the FBI what they wanted to hear in November, 1963?
(G9)
Harold
Weisberg,
Whitewash (1965)
The narrative continues
with Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister with whom he lived,
noticing Oswald approaching with a "heavy brown bag," in
the Commission's words rather than Mrs. Randle's. "He gripped
the bag in his right hand, near the top. 'It tapered like this as
he hugged it in his hand. It was... more bulky toward the bottom than
toward the top." If this seems like a novel or dangerous way
to carry a rifle, especially with the metal portion not attached to
the stock and more likely to punch a hole in paper, it did not seem
so to the Commission. And if Oswald's "gripping" and "hugging"
might be expected to leave marks of at least crumpling on the bag,
the Commission did not so expect and the bag itself shows no markings
of the shape of a rifle, assembled or disassembled. The creases where
it was folded in four are still sharp and clear. After untold handling,
examination and testing, these creases are strong enough to keep the
bag from lying flat when extended to its full length...
Knowing Oswald's sleeve
length and height, as the Commission did, measuring the length of
a package he could have held in his grip without touching the ground
was simple and provided an accurate means of approximating the length.
Actually, it requires a tall man, which Oswald was not, or a man with
abnormally short arms (we don't know his arm length), for a 28-inch
package to even barely clear the ground. The Commission had a passion
for reconstructions. All of them had unsatisfactory results and at
best jeopardized the Commission's findings. Some disproved the Commission's
theories. The minimum length of the disassembled rifle was 34.8 inches.
The Report does not quote a package reconstruction...
The only suggestion of
any connection between Oswald and the bag was through fingerprints.
Because Oswald worked where the bag was reported to have been found,
the presence of his fingerprints was totally meaningless. Sebastian
F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, developed
a single fingerprint and a single palmprint he identified as Oswald's.
More significantly, "No other identifiable prints were found
on the bag".
After all the handling
of the bag attributed to Oswald, first in making it, then in packing
it, then taking it to Frazier's car, putting it down in the car, picking
it up and carrying it toward if not into the building for two blocks,
and then, at least by inference, through the building, and when removing
and assembling a rifle Marina testified he kept oiled and cleaned,
how is it to be explained that he left only two prints? The only thing
as strange is that this bag was also handled by the police and was
the only evidence they did not photograph, according to their testimonies,
where found. Yet the freshest prints, those of the police, were not
discovered.
The Warren
Commission believed Lee Harvey Oswald took the rifle into the Texas
Book Depository in a brown paper bag. What evidence does Harold Weisberg
provide to raise doubts about the evidence of the brown paper bag.
(G10)
Michael
Kurtz, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From
a Historians Perspective (1982)
The evidence
against Oswald is impressive: the discovery of his rifle bearing his
palmprint on the sixth floor of the Book Depository building; the
testimony of eyewitness Howard Brennan; Oswald's prints on the cartons
and paper sack at the window; the discovery of three cartridge cases
from his rifle by the window; the discovery of two bullet fragments
fired from his rifle in the limousine; his departure from the building
soon after the shooting.
On the other side of the
coin, the evidence in Oswald's favor is equally impressive: eyewitness
identification of him on the second floor of the Depository building
fifteen minutes before the assassination and two minutes after it;
the lack of his prints on the outside of the rifle; the questions
as to whether the cartridge cases had actually been fired from the
rifle during the assassination; the extremely difficult feat of marksmanship
an assassin firing from the window faced; the lack of corroboration
for Brennan's contradictory and confused identification.
Thus, the evidence about
Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement in the assassination is inconclusive.
The fact that Oswald may have shot the president does not, of course,
preclude the possibility that he may not have. Obviously, Oswald remains
a prime suspect. But an objective evaluation of the evidence simply
does not permit a definitive conclusion about his guilt or innocence.
Why does
Michael Kurtz say the evidence against Oswald is inconclusive?
(G11)
G.
Robert Blakey
was interviewed by ABC
News in 2003.
ABC News: Let me ask you:
40 years after the fact and 25 years after your investigation, who
killed John F. Kennedy?
Blakey: Lee Harvey Oswald
killed John Kennedy. Two shots from behind. The evidence is simply
overwhelming. You have to be lacking in judgment and experience in
dealing with the evidence to think that Lee Harvey Oswald did not
kill President Kennedy. That's really not the problem. The problem
is: Was there something beyond Lee Harvey Oswald? And now what you
do is you look at the evidence.
ABC News: How many shots
were fired at Dealey Plaza?
Blakey: What we did is
determine that there were in fact four shots. Our scientists looked
at a tape we found, and they did a scientific analysis of it, and
it indicated four shots in the plaza, three from the depository and
one from the grassy knoll. That meant there were two shooters in the
plaza, two shooters in the plaza equal a conspiracy.
The first shot from the
depository by Lee Harvey Oswald missed. The second shot about 1.6
seconds later, hit the president in the back of the neck. (The bullet
exited Kennedy and) hit John Connally. It hit his wrist, hit his leg.
Now six seconds from the second shot, we think a shot came from the
grassy knoll. It missed the president. The shot from the grassy knoll
missed. The X-rays, the autopsy, all of that indicates the president
was not hit by a shot from any other direction. Seven-tenths of a
second after that, the third shot, fourth in the row, third shot from
the depository, hits the president right in the back of the head.
The shot from the grassy
knoll is not only supported by the acoustics, which is a tape that
we found of a police motorcycle broadcast back to the district station.
It is corroborated by eyewitness testimony in the plaza. There were
20 people, at least, who heard a shot from the grassy knoll.
Does G.
Robert Blakey believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the killing
of President Kennedy? Does Blakey agree with the findings of the Warren
Commission?
(G12)
Michael Granberry, Dallas
Morning News (22nd November, 2003)
And then came the first shot. Like most witnesses, Winston Lawson
recalls two more, though puzzled by the quicker pace between the second
and the third, which all but tore the president's head off. The madness
that ensued found him and other agents racing to Parkland Hospital,
where he was among the first to see the president's body, crumpled
in the Lincoln.
"You
could see the damage to the head, which was devastating," he
says. "You could see the color of the skin, which was gray, but
not gray, really. I knew it had to be a fatal wound. I never saw the
president alive again or his body again."
Instead, he embarked on a 40-year trial of re-examination. "I
must have thought a million times, what could I have done to prevent
it?" he said. "And what could I have done about 20,000 windows?"
He
says he believes fervently that Oswald acted alone. Conspiracy buffs,
he says, neglect to consider the 10 miles of the motorcade's route,
stretching from Love Field, to Lemmon Avenue, to Turtle Creek, to
Cedar Springs, to Harwood, to Main, to Elm, to history. The trip was
to take 35 minutes before arriving at the Trade Mart.
"There
were a million better places from which to have fired a weapon,"
said Lawson.
Why
does Winston Lawson believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman?
(G13)
David R. Wrone, review of Case Closed by Gerald
Posner in Journal of Southern
History (February 1995)
Gerald Posner
argues that the Warren Commission properly investigated the assassination
of JFK. He claims to have refuted the critics, purports to show what
actually occurred, and asserts simple factual answers to explain complex
problems that have plagued the subject for years. In the process he
condemns all who do not agree with the official conclusions as theories
driven by conjectures. At the same time his book is so theory driven,
so rife with speculation, and so frequently unable to conform his
text with the factual content in his sources that it stands as one
of the stellar instances of irresponsible publishing on the subject...
No credible
evidence connects Oswald to the murder. All the data that Posner presents
to do so is either shorn of context, corrupted, the opposite of what
the sources actually say, or nonsourced. For example, 100 percent
of the witness testimony and physical evidence exclude Oswald from
carrying the rifle to work that day disguised as curtain rods. Posner
manipulates with words to concoct a case against Oswald as with Linnie
Mae Randle, who swore the package, as Oswald allegedly carried it,
was twenty-eight inches long, far too short to have carried a rifle.
He grasped its end, and it hung from his swinging arm to almost touch
the ground. Posner converts this to "tucked under his armpit,
and the other end did not quite touch the ground". The rifle
was heavily oiled, but the paper sack discovered on the sixth floor
had not a trace of oil. Posner excludes this vital fact.
To refute
criticism that the first of three shots (the magic bullet) inflicted
seven nonfatal wounds on two bodies in impossible physical and time
constraints, he invents a second magic bullet. He asserts that Oswald
fired the first bullet near frame 160 of the Zapruder film, fifty
frames earlier than officially held, and missed. The bullet hit a
twig or a branch or a tree, as he varies it, then separated into its
copper sheath and lead composite core. The core did a right angle
to fly west more than 200 feet to hit a curbstone and wound Tague
while the sheath decided to disappear. The curb in fact had been damaged.
He omits that analysis of the curb showed the bullet came from the
west, which means the bullet would have had to have taken another
sui generis turn of 135 degrees to get back west with sufficient force
to smash concrete, which he pretends was not marred.
He asserts
proof of a core hit because FBI analysis revealed "traces of
lead with a trace of antimony" in the damage. What he omits destroys
his theory. He does not explain that a bullet core has several other
metallic elements in its composition, not two, rendering his conclusion
false. He further neglects to inform the reader that by May 1964 the
damage had been covertly patched with a concrete paste and that in
August, not July, 1964, the FBI tested the scrapings of the paste,
not the damage, which gave the two metal results.
Why
does David R. Wrone reject the theories put forward by the Warren
Commission and Gerald Posner?
(G14)
Michael
Kurtz,
Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historians
Perspective (1982)
On 1 November,
"Oswald" entered Morgan's Gunshop in Fort Worth and acted
"rude and impertinent." A few days later, the night manager
of the Dallas Western Union office saw "Oswald" pick up
several money orders. On 9 November, "Oswald" test drove
a car. The salesman, Albert Bogard, remembered "Oswald's"
telling him that he would return in a couple of weeks when he would
have "a lot of money" On 10 November "Oswald"
applied for a job as a parking attendant at Allright Parking Systems
in Dallas. As he talked with Hubert Morrow, the manager, "Oswald"
inquired about the Southland Hotel, where the parking lot was located,
and whether the building provided a good view of downtown Dallas.
On the afternoon
of 22 November, Dr. Homer Wood saw Oswald's picture on television
and recognized him as the man he saw at the Sports Drome Rifle Range
in Dallas on 16 November. Dr. Wood, his account corroborated by his
son, remembered "Oswald's" firing a 6.5 mm. Italian rifle
with a four-power scope. Considering "Oswald's" purchase
of ammunition a few days before, the repair work done on his rifle
by Dial Ryder, we see a pattern clearly emerging. "Oswald"
bought ammunition, had his rifle repaired, inquired about the view
from a Dallas building, remarked about coming into possession of a
lot of money very soon, and called attention to himself at the firing
range.
All these incidents clearly
cast suspicion on Oswald. Yet, the real Lee Harvey Oswald did not
participate in any of them. The evidence demonstrates that he was
elsewhere when each of these events took place. Yet the evidence also
demonstrates that they did take place and that numerous reliable eyewitnesses
saw a man who they believed was Lee Harvey Oswald participate in them.
While no absolute evidence exists to explain this curiosity, it is
not unreasonable to hypothesize that someone impersonating Oswald
went to great lengths to focus attention on himself during the three
weeks prior to the assassination.
What is
the significance of the fact that someone impersonated Lee Harvey
Oswald during November, 1963?
Available from Amazon
Books (order below)
