Skip to content

Who Killed Kennedy?

May 28, 2010

A gentleman never wears brown and a serious person never even talks about the Kennedy assassination.

It’s hard, however, to distance yourself in Dallas.

Here the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvey Oswald had his sniper’s nest, has been converted to the Sixth Floor Museum. You look down on Dealey Plaza as Oswald did through the 4X telescopic sight of his Mannlicher-Carcano cradled on a book carton.

The World War Two Italian gun cost $12.78, its telescopic sight $7.17. Both were bought in American style from a mail order house in Chicago.

It was, according to experts – here we are being drawn into argument with conspirators – a very accurate weapon. And Oswald – more argument with the dissenters – was a proficient marksman at much greater distances than the 81 metres that separated him from the open Lincoln Continental carrying the President.

Looking from the window at the “X” painted on the road surface, I thought assassination is too solemn a term. This was plain, unvarnished murder.

John Kennedy had what critics call character faults. While President he may have smoked reefers in bed with mistress Mary Meyer and tried LSD with her. He certainly bedded Judith Campbell, a top mafia man’s mistress. They may have resulted in impeachment if he had lived to win a second term. Hugh Sidey, the friendly TIME correspondent, believes so.

But just under three years into his presidency he was achieving, what might be called a certain grandeur. He was beginning to move beyond the Cold War and towards civil rights for American blacks.

So consider this: the man who secured the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and was arguing with Southern governors to let blacks enrol at university was felled by a 24 year old wife-beater with no cause except his own demons.

With help from a hotel concierge I located a member of “the research community.” That’s Dallas code for an assassination nut – in this case a retired security man, owning over 100 books on the issue and attending annual conferences of conspiracy theorists. He conducts tours from Love Field where Air Force One had landed at 11:39am to the Parkland hospital where Kennedy had been pronounced dead at 1pm.

As you inspect rooming houses where Oswald and his Russian wife Marina lived or see the run down cinema where he was seized, it’s Oswald’s lonely, angry life that stares back at you. You are nudged towards the lone nutter theory endorsed by the Warren Commission.

And I kept thinking of the view of novelist Norman Mailer in his book Oswald’s Tale that there’s enough in Oswald, this vulgar nonentity, to explain the deed. And Mailer knew all there was to know about the overlap of CIA, mafia and exiled Cubans in Kennedy’s America.

Yet when Robert Kennedy, brother to the President, heard the news of the assassination his immediate action was to ring the Director of the CIA, John McCone, and ask whether the agency had been involved. For the Attorney-General to even think this points to a war within the Kennedy administration. This is the starting point for David Talbot’s 2007 book Brothers, a sophisticated account of how the idea of a conspiracy persisted within Kennedy circles.

Talbot argued that Cuba was the Iraq of its day. To the “national security elite … it was where the forces of good and evil were arrayed against each other, the epicentre of the struggle that would come close to a literally earth-shattering climax.” And the military and intelligence bosses thought their own President was dangerous.

For his part Kennedy had despaired of the CIA after the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs affair in 1961. In the Cuban Missile crisis of October 1962 he had overruled the unanimous proposal of his Joint Chiefs of Staff of a full-scale invasion of Cuba. He was to say privately, “I am almost a ‘peace-at-any-price’ president,” and this seemed to be woven into the June 1963 Peace Speech where he argued for Americans to examine their attitudes to the Soviet Union, the Cold War and the possibilities of peace.

You don’t have to struggle with James Ellroy’s unreadable novel American Tabloid to grasp the fact of a sewer running just under American political life in these years. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr put it more elegantly, writing of “the underground streams through which so much of the actuality of American power darkly coursed: the FBI, CIA, the racketeering unions and the mob.”

Talbot’s thesis is that members of the Kennedy inner circle believed in a conspiracy or were open to its reality.

Except…there is no evidence. None.

Further, the Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley says of the President, “His differences with the hardliners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional Cold War thinking.” He and Robert still wanted to use the CIA to kill Castro. His intentions on Vietnam were elusive.

Today, the anti-conspiracy case has overwhelmingly the bulk of the arguments.

Published in 2007, Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History boasts 1,664 pages with a separate CD-ROM carrying an additional 1,128 pages of footnotes. It’s said that if the book were produced in normal volumes of 120,000 words each it would be 13 volumes, every line wrestling conspiracy theories to the ground.

I know how Ishmael felt, when dragged under the ocean, he watched Moby-Dick churn by. But I won’t harpoon Reclaiming History; there is a limit on even my capacity for this kind of stuff,

Or, as Bryan Burrough wrote in The New York Times, “This book should be applauded. I’m not sure, however, that it should be read.”

More manageable is Gerald Posner’s 580 page Case Closed, published in 1993 and since updated.

Posner savages Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK which elevated Jim Garrison, District Attorney of Orleans, in his manic attempts to prove conspiracy. Posner reminds us that Garrison first alleged a conspiracy that was “a homosexual thrill killing.” He later endorsed “a Nazi operation” sponsored by oil rich millionaires. Later a CIA operation with Jack Ruby as paymaster. Later a plot by White Russians, with Robert Kennedy joining the Warren Commission as part of the cover-up. The movie was a disgrace because it invested Garrison’s lunacies with glamour.

As for Dealey Plaza, of the nearly 200 witnesses who expressed an opinion on the number of shots whose testimony or statements are in the National Archives and the 26 Warren Commission volumes, over 88 per cent heard three. This is the official story. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, established by Congress to review all material, claimed in 1979 there was an additional shot based on a recording of the police radio network. But this was rushed and sloppy work and more recent acoustical science dispels it.

Members of the Warren Commission handing their report to LBJ

There’s no evidence of mafia involvement. There is no link between the mafia and Oswald, nor a pattern of the mafia killing American politicians.

Posner dispels the classic conspiratorial argument that there had been “mystery deaths” of witnesses to the assassination. In fact he points out the long lifespan enjoyed by important witnesses, even three who claimed to have seen a second shooter. Even 30 named as the second shooter by conspiracy buffs. There is not a single mystery death.

Posner concluded, “Chasing shadows on the grassy knoll will never substitute for real history. Lee Harvey Oswald, driven by his own twisted and impenetrable furies, was the only assassin at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. To say otherwise, in light of the overwhelming evidence, is to absolve a man with blood on his hands, and to mock the President he killed.”

President Lyndon Johnson reportedly resorted to the mantra, “Lone gunman. No conspiracy” in his talks with Chief Justice Earl Warren.

His motive was to settle public opinion and rein-in right-wing extremists who wanted to blame Castro. But he was right. Lone gunman. No conspiracy.

Case closed.

41 Comments
  1. Greg Marshall permalink
    May 28, 2011 8:29 am

    I visited Dallas last year and went to the 6th floor museum and spent a long time walking around Dealey Plaza. I confess to have been a conspiracy theorist, although these days I’m a little more ambivalent. However what struck me as interesting is the view from that 6th floor window and the choice that Oswald made as to when to fire the shots. As the motorcade came down N Houston Street, Oswald would have had a target becoming relatively larger as it was moving almost directly toward him. Yet he waited until after the vehicle had turned left on Elm Street and was moving obliquely away from him, and getting smaller, at roughly a 45 degree angle. This, then, is the location of the fatal shot which would have presented a near perfect front on target for a gunman behind the picket fence at the top of the ‘grassy knoll’; hence the question of whether he was a lone gunman or not. I’m sure the matter will never be laid to rest. Anyhow, going back in January with my wife. The museum is well worth a visit. Thank you for your article.

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 28, 2011 11:42 am

      But shooting the President head-on while traveling down Houston Street would have Oswald totally exposed and visible to the security detail who would have been facing him, an easy target himself. Hence the obvious appeal of waiting till the cars made the sharp turn and he could take his target from behind.

    • David Thiele permalink
      May 28, 2011 3:51 pm

      I am a History teacher from Adelaide. I read your article in today’s Weekend Australian (‘Brought down by a nobody’, Inquirer, p.6) with great interest.

      Like you, I am a keen reader of American history. Since the age of 12, I have been particularly interested in the lives and careers of the U.S. Presidents. And, like you, I have also visited Dallas (on two occasions, the most recent in 2006) and found myself pondering the JFK assassination at close range, so to speak.

      For many years I have grappled with the various conspiracy theories behind JFK’s murder, studied available evidence, spoken with assassination aficionados (including a self-proclaimed eyewitness), trodden all over Dealey Plaza and visited the Sixth Floor Museum. I have also stood at JFK’s impressive grave at Arlington Cemetery and reflected on his life, his presidency and his legacy. And as drawn as I was to the idea that JFK must have been murdered as part of an elaborate conspiracy of Oliver Stone-esque proportions, Gerald Posner’s Case Closed brings me back to earth about what actually transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Your article further reminded me of the overwhelming case against Lee Oswald.

      Posner made the point in his book that JFK’s assassination has become a national industry. Without sensational conspiracy stories, the commercialisation of the crime would quickly collapse. There are many people making lucrative profits from peddling conspiracy theories to a susceptible public. When I visited Dallas, I certainly came to understand what Posner meant by this. I was confronted by hawkers selling assassination memorabilia in Dealey Plaza and visited a ‘JFK Assassination Information Centre’. I also met a chap who operated an outfit called ‘JFK Presidential Limo Tours’ (and yes, he had a replica Lincoln Continental like the one Kennedy rode in, complete with surround sound speakers that would resonate with gunfire noise when the car got to Elm Street in Dealey Plaza!).

      Posner quotes Henry Steele Commager, who speaks about a ‘conspiracy psychology’ in relation to the JFK case, i.e. “…a feeling that great events can’t be explained by ordinary processes…The conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary evidence… [it must] find refuge in the extraordinary” (Posner, Case Closed, 1993, pp.470-471).

      So while the JFK assassination industry will no doubt continue to thrive, it is good that grounded historians such as Posner and yourself have made useful and enlightened contributions to the discussion. Thanks again for your timely article.

      • May 29, 2011 7:49 pm

        Two of the authors whom have made great deals out of the publication of Kennedy books are Posner and Bugliosi…a large percentage of the better researched books come and go with little fanfare..and many have to be self published…I’d be interested in what constitutes “grounded” in Posner’s shameful career..
        Was JFK and the Unspeakable ever widely reviewed, if at all, in the Australian Media?…
        steveduffy36@gmail.com.

  2. May 28, 2011 8:33 am

    The best explanation for the assassination I’m yet to see – from Full Metal Jacket.

    Outstanding!

  3. Ivan Pagett permalink
    May 28, 2011 9:11 am

    It still holds a morbid fascination. The one thing that keeps the conspiracy theories going and leaves normally rational people wondering….why did Jack Ruby (with all we now know about him) shoot Oswald? I think Im going to sit in my chair and read “Harlot’s Ghost” again. I may be some time.

  4. Bill permalink
    May 28, 2011 12:36 pm

    You don’t strike me as someone unintelligent, so I guess I’m a little confused as to why you are so certain yourself? How can you possibly know for certain anything like that?

    Out of interest have you come across Turner and Christian’s book into the Robert Kennedy assassination? Not sure why it was pulped when originally published in the 70’s – maybe you know for certain the reasons?

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 28, 2011 4:29 pm

      Read Posner and get back to me.

      • Bill permalink
        May 28, 2011 5:27 pm

        Ok then Bob – just one question – have you read the work of Peter Dale Scott, and if so, do you consider his work to be that of a conspiracy nut?

      • Bob Carr permalink
        May 28, 2011 5:55 pm

        No, I haven’t but two questions of you : who else ? Where’s the proof ?

  5. Andrew Russell permalink
    May 28, 2011 2:48 pm

    Goodness me! Good to see the conspiracy nuts getting some stick. As everyone knows, the last thing a conspiracy theorist wants to confront is the evidence. Good on you, Bob!

    Shame, though that you did not mention where the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was was a crack marksman came from. Was it his El Toro base marine buddies? No – couldn’t be because they told the Warren Commission he wasn’t very good with a rifle and didn’t like shooting down at the range. And what about that Mannlicher Carno rifle – quite a piece! Oswald had to be a great shot given the sights were so out of line when the good ole boys at the FBI tried to test it. Still, the Dallas Homicide department did find his palm print on it 48 hours after the FBI couldn’t – so he must have used it! And that photograph with him standing in the backyard holding it along with that no good communist rag – looks like we’ve got him to me! Never mind the fact that someone doctored the photo by putting Oswald head on top of the man holding the rifle. Probably happened all the time back in 1963. Wouldn’t happen now, would it?

    But even if he didn’t use that rifle, perhaps he used the Mauser complete with telescopic sight the Dallas Police reported they found on the night they had Oswald in custody. Seems they mislaid it though. Perhaps it was the other, third (are you counting Bob?) filmed by Associated Press (may have to check that reference, but at least it is a reference) – you know, the one that didn’t have a telescopic sight- being carried out of the book depository by Dallas police officers. They should have used DHL because that one got lost too.

    Still, quite a marksman Lee Harvey Oswald – I mean that magic third bullet of his . I notice Bob you don’t put you enormous reputation on the line to explain that bit of physics. Best not to mention it! All those entry and exit wounds – gets messy trying to relive that one. Also good not to mention the number of witnesses who chased people running away from the picket fence, into the rail yard. Still, Dallas police were on hand – and photographs exist, Bob – to arrest them. Seems they lost them too. Hey, but why go on – it would only spoil it for the conspiracy nuts.

    Congratulations, Bob, really enjoyed your piece. I just don’t understand why those conspiracy nuts don’t get it!

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 28, 2011 4:30 pm

      Yes, and who did it ?
      Which of Garrison’s many conspiracies is yours ?

      • May 29, 2011 7:15 pm

        Which theories do you think he held?, or would you concede that, like any massive criminal investigation, Garrison’s own opinions and attitudes changed in time?…Garrison’s files are now public for anyone to read, if they are willing to spend the time and money. One doesn’t have to rely on Posner, Bugliosi, Et al, to read his trial brief. His views on the assassination changed over many years…but his case was quiet simple in theory. What he didn’t count on was the massive effort to undermine him and his lawful duty. to lump all his “theories” (as though there were dozens) together is to undermine what his department, and subsequent researchers, have discovered. It’s also..slack. Elements of a plot surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy was discovered amongst segments of the CIA/Mafia/ and anti-Castro Cuban’s melting pot that came together in New Orleans. All historically acceptable candidates.
        His trial brief was against Clay Shaw and others for plotting to assassinate the President. Shaw committed perjury when questioned on stand….all this is historically available. Shaw was found innocent, (not for lack of very well funded help) but the case for conspiracy was readily accepted by the jury…
        http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/garrison-papers.html#investigate

  6. Charles Bures, Port Noarlunga SA permalink
    May 28, 2011 8:37 pm

    Hello Bob Carr.

    The assassination of President Kennedy when I was a boy, has, thus far, been the most affecting public event in my life, eclipsing even the events of September 11th, 2001.

    Long ago, during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s I bought and read quite a number of books on the assassination, including Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment, Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson(always loved that punchy little title), Conspiracy – Who killed President Kennedy? by Anthony Summers, Legend – The Secret World Of Lee Harvey Oswald by Edward Jay Epstein, The Oswald File by Michael Eddowes, and a few others. Long ago I concluded that it must have been Oswald acting alone, and nothing I have read, or seen on tv or the cinema during the ensuing thirty or so years has been able to sway me from that conclusion, including a book published in 2010, Head Shot by G. Paul Chambers, an experimental physicist. This book claims to be “The First Book to: Identify the Second Murder Weapon, Prove the Locations of the Assassins, and Demonstrate Multiple Shooters with Scientific Certainty”. Not a long book it is nevetheless, in places, a difficult read, and it is challenging, and I would be pretty hard pressed to refute the author’s conclusions, particularly with a pretty rusty and basic knowledge of physics which I acquired long ago. I cannot buy the author’s conclusions, tantalising as they are, because his approach is not three dimensional: he is not particularly interested in the who or WHY, using science only to prove his thesis – you know, it’s science, so it can’t be wrong! And, for your interest, he makes a fair go of demolishing Posner, and others.

    As you say, lone gunman. No conspiracy. Case closed.

    Three “by the ways”, if I may:

    1. I noticed in your accompanying review of the Kennedy mini-series
    your description of the world teetering on the nuclear abyss during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This, of course, is the accepted view in the Anglosphere, if not the entire West. Well, I have never accepted it. I can remember my father from a central European country saying calmly during those 1962 days that the Russians would never go to war over Cuba. He had come to know the Russians quite well, I can assure you.

    2. I have among my possessions entire editions of the three Adelaide newspapers from those days of the assassinations of both Kennedy and Oswald which I kept: The News, The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail. In one of those newpapers is a report that Kennedy was to visit Australia in 1964. Assuming this report was accurate, one has to wonder why he would have been coming here, why he would have been the first US president to visit Australia, given the problems at home, in Europe and that 1964 was an election year. It must have been pretty important for him to visit this part of the world, wouldn’t you think? Could it possibly have had anything to do with the deteriorating situation in South Vietnam, I wonder? Could he have been coming to ensure Australian military support for an expanded US presence in South Vietnam? Let’s remember that the first US president to visit Australia was LBJ in 1966, and that visit’s prime focus was the prosecution of the war in Vietnam.

    Does anyone know anything about Kennedy’s proposed visit to Australia?

    3. Every Kennedyphile should be familiar with the beautiful Connie Francis recording of In the Summer of His Years(which only made it to the predictions here on the Adelaide Top 40 charts in early 1964), which was penned by an Englishman in the hours after the assassination. It can be heard on YouTube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-bbJKF6-qM

    Cheers

  7. Bill permalink
    May 28, 2011 9:04 pm

    If you’re not familiar with the work of Scott on this topic, you have no solid foundation for that of which you speak. You are not deserving of any more time and I hereby consider your writings flak. Case closed.

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 28, 2011 10:34 pm

      I repeat : which of the conspiracies do you subscribe to ?

    • May 29, 2011 7:17 pm

      If he should answer, will you then read Scott?…it would open your eyes…

  8. Rod permalink
    May 28, 2011 9:07 pm

    Oh one more thing, understanding who and why The Kennedy’s were killed is important, it is as relevant now as it was then. I worked in the media once and in the financial markets now and am fully aware of the manipulation that exists just in them. Lets not even get into politics , oh that right you were in politics . The general public is treated as mugs, always has been. To understand the extent of the cover ups the JFK assassination is a good start. What you have to know is that there are still people alive today who were involved, powerful people. They work hard to perpetuate the ” official Story” . I doubt you mean to play into their hands, but being who you are and publishing this article it would seem you have. Anyway I will provide references if desired. Thanks Rod,

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 29, 2011 8:07 pm

      Who did it if not Oswald ? Where is the evidence ?

      Oswald’s flight from the scene and his rushed behavior tells us a lot.
      Remember Norman Mailer – there is everything you need to know in LHO to explain the deed.

      If not, who ?

  9. Case Open permalink
    May 28, 2011 9:22 pm

    Hmmm…..I read your article in the Weekend Australian, and let’s just say I don’t agree at all…..

    To paint a picture here, I have followed the case very enthusiastically for over 20 years. I’m now nearly 36 years old, so since my youth. Such is my interest, that I own items like a piece of the original picket fence that stood on the knoll, a sign from the Texas Theatre, brick from the TSBD, a raincoat once owned by Jack Ruby, and several signatures of persons involved in the case (Connally, Ruby, Henry Wade, James Tague, and a few witnesses)

    I have read the Warren Report, Case Closed, Reclaiming History, and critical books such as Rush To Judgement, Inquest, Case Open, Accessories After The Fact, Six Seconds In Dallas, Post Mortem, The Killing Of A President, The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald, The Last Investigation, A Farewell To Justice, and Destiny Betrayed, to name a few. Although I essentially err on the side of conspiracy, I have recently bought CIA stooley Priscilla McMillan’s old book, “Marina & Lee”, in a group that also included the Jim Marrs book, “Crossfire”. I have every program from the last 15 years show in Oz recorded to DVDs, and have bought many DVDs on the subject, such as “Lee Harvey Oswald: On Trial” (the mock trial with Bugliosi/Spence), and the thoroughly-recommended “Into Evidence”, which shows presentations given by experts and panels on the occassion of the 40th anniverary of the assassination.

    Naturally I have been to Dallas and seen the major assassination-related sites, Dealey Plaza (of course), even 10th & Patton Streets, the Ruby garage, and the Texas Theatre. I even flew in and out of Love Field.

    Posner’s “Case Closed” got ravaged by the critical community, so much so that he’s largely excluded by them. This destruction even got a mention in the tome, so even Bugliosi agrees (although he does agree with the overall thesis).

    But I don’t recall Bugliosi really hitting the conspiracy movement with anything new. The tome was detailed, of course, but I found he conveniently ignored many points. One has to remember he is a prosecutor, and would a prosecutor ignore something damning to his argument ?

    Hell yeah !

    Jim Di Eugenio is someone I’ve had contact with before, and he writes a great ten-page essay on what Bugliosi omitted from his book here:

    http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

    Pat Speer has also wrote several articles on flaws with the tome, and I’ve got stacks of great website links that do similar damage to the claims of WC apologists.

    I could write pages here, but I will concentrate on the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). The lynch-pin of sole assassin (SA) theorists I have found is the reliance on issues like Neutron Activation Analysis. I have read many blogs where it is spouted. So, it must have been a sad day when the FBI deemed it as “junk science”. However, as quick as SA theorists were to throw their weight behind a science that is now not permitted into evidence in US courts, they reject the Paraffin Test results from Oswald, that showed nitrates on his hands, but not on his face. The problem is, Paraffin Tests are still admissible.

    Further with the SBT, it just doesn’t jibe with what is seen on the Zapruder Film. Kennedy is clearly responding to his wound as he disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and was probably hit around Z190, but Connally shows nothing until Z225 or so. The problem is that Connally has allegedly has a chest, wrist, and leg wound, and shows no visible response, but JFK has been hit through his throat only. Human reaction time can be measured (refer the book “Head Shot” by G.Paul Chambers), and yet Connally reacts way after. The “delayed reaction” defense by apologists is nonsense.

    Bugliosi even told an untruth on the dynamics of the SBT – he lied about Connally’s seating position !

    According to the tome, Bugliosi has the jump seat of the X-100 located a foot from the door. This is totally incorrect, it was 2.5 inches. So his Dale Myers-inspired positioning is wrong anyway.

    Never mind the wounds themselves. Firstly, Connally’s surgeon, Dr Shaw, did some analysis and disagreed with the origin of the shot as being in the alleged sniper’s perch. Furthermore, CE399, the “Magic Bullet” weighs 158.6 grains, and could weigh a maximum of 161 grains. It would have shed a tiny amount of it’s weight before it left the Carcano barrel, then had to shed no more than 2.4 grains, leaving fragments in Connally’s chest, wrist, and thigh along the way (let alone any left from JFK’s wound). The problem is this – the bullet weight 158.6 grains AFTER particles were removed for spectographic analysis by the FBI, and it was not weighed before. So it now has to only shed 2.4 grains INCLUDING that taken for spectographic analysis.

    Not enough to call the SBT ridiculous ?

    Let’s look at the bullet and the wounds – even if you believe that bunched-up jacket nonsense that Posner/Bugliosi buy into, you have to ignore that an autopsy photo, the shirt, the jacket, and a couple of death certificates all state the third thorasic region as being the entry point, just to the right of the spine. So how does a bullet fired downwards, with all physical evidence (except Gerald Ford’s lying tongue !), course upward to exit a couple of millimetres below the adam’s apple ???

    Bullets are more dense than skin and bone – unless JFK had a steel plate in his upper body, I don’t see how that is going to fly !

    Forgetting that minor point, the bullet then has to course down into Connally. Forgetting Dr Shaw disagreed with this (forget the Specter-ization of the Warren Commission & his carefully worded questions), you then have a huge piece of Connally’s rib to smash, then exit below his nipple.

    Then we have the wrist wound – ok, so it is a dorsal to volar wound……that is, the bullet entered on the non-palm/outer of his wrist, then exit from the palm side, all while he is allegedly holding his stetson hat. The best I can think of is that his hand was resting on his leg (don’t know how when he was holding the hat), but it’s the only way I can see it. It is very uncomfortable to have the dorsal side of your hand pressed against your body, especially holding something. So rather than conclude something else must have happened, like maybe separate bullet or bullets causing the wounds to Connally, we incredulously believe Arlen Specter ???

    So then we have the leg wound, which is not that controversial on it’s own, only that a near pristine bullet managed to work it’s way out of it and land on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Never mind that Tomlinson was positive that the stretcher was not used by Connally, and he was browbeat by the Warren Commission. Never mind that neither Tomlinson or Parkland security officer O.P. Wright refused to identify the bullet and in fact described a different bullet entirely (look for Wright’s name in Bugliosi’s tome – you won’t find it). Never mind that the chain of evidence was broken in regards to the FBI’s receipting of this bullet, and never mind that examples fired into a bucket of water by the FBI seemed to have the same flattening that is seen as the only significant damage to the bullet apart from some rifling marks.

    Another flawed fact in this article is the HSCA’s accoustic evidence and how it has been “debunked”………okay, firstly, anyone quoting this simply has not looked at the kind of measuring the HSCA undertook via the accoustics experts, BBC, and the subsequent attempt to “debunk” it by the NRC. Again, read Chambers in “Head Shot” on this, or watch the presentation by David Thomas MD on the accoustic evidence on the excellent DVD, “Into Evidence” to see how ridiculous it is to refer to the accoustic evidence as “random noise”.

    The NRC argument is actually dumb – the results from BBC stated that from correlation, there is a 96% chance that the accoustics are genuine, while NRC’s “debunking” said no, it’s more like around a 70% chance. Well, if I told you that you had a 96% chance of winning the lotto tonight, and someone checked my figures and decided that there was only about a 70% chance, would you still buy a ticket ????

    The HSCA themselves did something idiotic – they found five shots that correlated, but they went with only four in their report…….why ?

    Well, they decided that another shot came from around the vicinity of the Book Depository building, but because Oswald could not recycle the Carcano in time to fire this shot, there was no way that shot could have come from that area. Uhh…..well HSCA, might we then presume this fifth shot came from within the TSBD or perhaps the Dal-Tex building, fired from someone other than Oswald ???

    I also would disagree with Mr Carr on the certainty of Oswald purchasing the rifle. An example of this is that the gunsmith at Klein’s Sporting Goods testified that they ONLY fitted scopes to the 38-inch model of the Carcano rifle. The problem is that Oswald’s was the 40-inch model. Secondly, a key declaration he HAD TO SIGN to collect the rifle from the post office was not filled out. Thirdly, he apparently walked around New Orleans going to a bank that was way out of his way for the money order, then posting it in an entirely different spot – all while his wage book confirm he was at work the entire time. Then let’s look at the three testimonies of what LHO was carrying when he walked into the TSBD on the day of the assassination. Buell Frazier stated he had the paper bag with the rifle, Oswald himself said he was carrying his lunch, but two eyewitnesses saw LHO enter the building with nothing in his hands, and one was a work colleague who was standing in the door which LHO entered through. Even this basic “fact” of the assassination, the curtain rods story, is questionable – it never even got any airtime for several days, after which Frazier had been extensively questioned by the Dallas PD.

    Bugliosi has way too much faith in the FBI……….so did he forget about their performances in some other high-profile cases. I mean, does anyone still think Bruno Hauptmann kidnapped the Lindberg baby ?

    Yup, that’s Bugliosi’s FBI at work……….basically, if Hoover said “sole-assassin”, then if you wanted to keep your job as an agent, you made the results concur with him. The Boggs/Russell/Cooper arm of the Warren Commission rightly concluded that Hoover lied his eyes out to the commission. To quote Hale Boggs, he lied “about Ruby, Oswald, you name it”.

    Another Bugliosi factoid – he arbitrarily dismisses witnesses who don’t jibe with his version of events, yet in the case that made him famous, the Manson Family Killings, he was willing to run with one key witness, Linda Kasabian. So he’ll run with one witness in the Manson case, but multiple witnesses reporting anything else than LHO as a lone assassin, he’ll try anything to make them appear less credible.

    The worst is his utterly shameful insulting of the critical community. I might not agree with David Mantik MD Phd on some of his theory, but Bugliosi tries to make him look like he should be in an asylum. Meanwhile, can you get Bugliosi to go to one of these conventions you refer to for some healthy debate ?

    I also like how Bugliosi labels the critical community as opportunists, giving out autographs, writing books, etc. James Di Eugenio smashed this argument to pieces, and to quote Cyril Wecht – “god forbid that you become so proficient on the subject that your write a book that has some success”. How hypocritical, when Bugliosi signs on to write the tome for a million or so.

    David Von Pein is a name well known amongst Warren Commission apologists. In 2004, he was crowing about how Bugliosi’s pending book will crush all conspiracy arguments. Now, he is apparently blogging with fellow apologists like John McAdams, because he has backed a loser. There was nothing new in his tome, but rather, it was just a repackage job, and since his book release in 2007, the critical community has slowly picked it apart. The apologists scrambled over the documentary “JFK: Inside The Target Car”, yet it’s been picked apart too. My favourite in that particular documentary is how it’s supposed to be so comprehensive, yet in the lone assassin test, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet failed to fragment. In the JFK case, this same bullet did – ample proof that the theory is wrong.

    I’m sorry Mr Carr, but I have to recommend you vary your books away from solely stoic commission defenders. Try one of the books I mentioned above. I can’t recommend the DVD “Into Evidence” enough. Watching apologist Kenneth Rahn brazenly declare all conspiracy theories as nonsense, and wholely endorse NAA, only to be comprehensively picked apart by the next speaker (Stuart Wexler) on NAA, and several others thereafter on his other claims, is a real highlight.

    One other note – on the JFK movie……..it has it’s faults, and way too big in terms of it’s conspiracy. Faults include the epileptic (debunked as early as 1964), the movie’s positioning for the SBT, and the changing of the parade route (one thing the Warren Commission clearly explained). It did get right the poor autopsy (and should have concentrated on that), more exactness in explaining the fragile SBT, and Rose Cheramie (it’s surprising much of her story actually did check out). They should have debunked Howard Brennan, the “witness” who claimed he saw the assassin fire the rifle – the Zapruder film confirms he was looking the other way at the time.

    Here is a partial list of what I thought Oliver Stone should have covered – the location of JFK’s back wound & the evidence that supports it’s location, Marina (broke at the time of the assassination) amassing $132k in a few months from a company called Tex-Italia, and the FBI & Secret Service turned a blind eye to this. Supposedly for media rights, she pocketed the money from this suspect company and never did a thing for it, yet she is telling such whoppers to the commission that Rankin & several others wrote about the dubious nature of her testimony…….Guy Bannister’s widow confirmed he had Fair Play For Cuba leaflets and placards in his garage, Oswald released after New Orleans arrest when interviewing officer learns of his status as FBI informant, Oswald’s application to the Swiss School that no one has heard of in the US (except the Paines), Oswald’s Russian language exam (odd for an enlisted man), Oswald’s light-speed discharge from the USMC and the dodgy reason for it, the dodgy McMillan/Marina find of LHO’s bus ticket to Mexico City at the time when Senator Russell was refusing to sign off on the Warren Report because of questions on this issue, the incredible WC debunking of Sylvia Odio, LBJ’s rejection of the SBT, the collapse of the case of LHO firing at General Walker if Marina was cross-examined, the Mauser/Carcano mix-up (the receiver stamping “Made In Italy” should have clarified it on the spot for Weitzman), could Oswald in fact drive ?, the issue with the Carcano bolt, the FBI rifle tests which failed to match LHO’s conditions, the three brown paper bags issue & the testimony of the guy who ran the packing station at the TSBD, the three wallets issue, changes in testimony of hearing the rifle bolt on the floor above from the guys on the fifth floor…..and I could go on and on about what Oliver Stone SHOULD have put in his movie.

    Brennan, Marina, Helen Markham……..three people that even the commission knew could not be cross-examined without the fear of seeing their testimony picked to pieces.

    Re Mafia – my personal belief on this is that Hoover may have contracted the mafia to dispose of Oswald. Ruby owed Carlos Marcello a lot of dough, and Hoover’s relationship with the mafia was well known. It’s put to Ruby that you kill LHO, and act like you were aggrieved, and you’ll probably be a hero and will probably get a light sentence. I notice when his trial went awry, he started making comments in front of the media to the effect that there was more too it. His passing of the lie detector test was a sham, although admittedly, he went back to denial mode in his death bed interview. Other than a possible disposal job, I wouldn’t put Ruby in a wide conspiracy, but I think his life depended on killing Oswald.

    I notice your defense mechanism to another blogger was to ask him what his theory was. Well, I’m sorry, I gave up on trying to work out “who” in the 1990s. I concentrate on whether all this information and evidence supports a lone assassin, and I’m afraid it has gaping holes.

    Bugliosi quotes former Dallas assistant DA Bill Alexander a lot (Yeah, the same guy that claimed he had no files on the assassination when he actually had a couple of filing cabinets of them). I don’t recall Bugliosi quoting this one from Alexander in his book – “The single bullet theory is like the imacculate conception: you either believe it or you don’t”.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t……..and that the SBT is the sine qua non of the sole assassin theory, then by default I am one of the critical community, because I just don’t believe that is a credible explanation of what happened. My conclusion is unsolved, Oswald somehow involved, conspiracy probable by unknown plotters.

    I’ll end this email by saying that I have barely touched on this topic, despite the length of what I’ve wrote here. I am more than willing to write in detail about Oswald (especially his status as FBI informant), Ruby, the Garrison case, HSCA, Warren Commission faults & selective conclusions, death of NAA, FBI doctoring, trying to make sense of the autopsy, the intelligence links of people like the Paines, Priscilla McMillan, Bannister/Shaw/Ferrie (seem to recall photos connect Ferrie to Oswald, and others connect Ferrie to Shaw).

    Here is a relevant question for you – in the Willis series of photos, and several others, there is the appearance of the mysterious “Black Dog Man”, along with another man, located at the palisade wall parrallel to the picket fence on the grassy knoll. In the Dillard photograph taken of the TSBD about 15 seconds after the fatal shot, a figure seems to appear in the extreme south-western window that is clearly not Oswald, looking east along Elm St. These two figures are either the most important witnesses in the entire case, or they are potential plotters. Black Dog Man & his friend are 110% confirmed as real, and south-western window man even seems to have a physical description. If there is no conspiracy, why have these figures not come forward in the years since to reveal themselves and tell us what they know, given the massive interest in the case ???

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 28, 2011 10:30 pm

      Absolutely fascinating.

      Maybe we should organize a conference on the subject.

      • Case Open permalink
        May 29, 2011 12:23 am

        Hi Bob – I’m game, if you have a real interest in the topic, let me know, as I’m always up for discussion on it. Maybe we could organize a breakaway Australian convention on it, as I don’t personally know anyone who follows the case to my extent here in Oz.

        Here are a few other points I’ve thought up since my last post:

        – Why was Mark Lane not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, as Marguerite Oswald had appointed him as her deceased son’s lawyer. Without permitting cross-examination, the WC was a kangaroo court.

        – Why was Oswald allowed a discharge from the USMC in record time, supposedly because his mother was injured. This was a complete joke of a reason – she had a candy jar fall on her foot in the department store she was working at, and this equated to little more than a sprain !

        – The FBI’s shooting test was nothing short of cheating. Oswald was firing at a moving target from distances of 60ft – 100ft with a defective scope. The FBI confirmed the rifle to be deadly accurate by getting people who would qualify for shooting events at the Olympics (ie – well beyond Oswald’s capabilities) to fire it at stationary targets at 30ft, and after the corrected the sight by adding three shims to counter-balance it !

        – If jet-effect is in play in relation to JFKs headshot according to Bugliosi/Posner, with the matter ejecting from the right of JFK’s skull, if the strict rules of jet-effect are in play (as demonstrated by Luis Alvarez), then the direction of the oncoming bullet should be the Records Building or Criminal Courts building.

        – Neuromuscular spasm doesn’t work, either, based on the Bugliosi/Posner model. Once again, human reaction time does not happen in one Zapruder film frame, and these guys allege that the bullet strikes at Z312, with Z313 showing the jetting and instantaneous recoil, so he would have to have reacted in two hundred milliseconds. Momentum conservation probably works better, and is consistent with a shot from the Knoll.

        – Exactly where the very-valid accoustic test confirmed the origin of a shot on the knoll is a point where momentum conservation would be consistent with what we see on the Zapruder film. It is also a point where railroad men investigating after the shots found cigarette butts & footprints in the mud, and determined that a puff of smoke originated from.

        – The WC investigators went all out to destroy certain witnesses. One that springs to mind is Victoria Adams, who ran from the windows of the TSBD to the staircase that Oswald is alleged to have used in his flight from the sniper’s perch. She was humiliated and branded a liar, and essentially disappeared into obscurity for 35 years, despite having a work colleague backing her story. There is even a book published that is about the relocating of this witness. If the WC was conducting a genuine investigation, why would they do this to such important witnesses ?

        – An officer (the name escapes me now) testified that Oswald’s poor shooting on his last visit to the firing range may be explained due to the poor weather conditions. The WC didn’t think to question this explanation in any way, but Mark Lane did – and the weather was clear & sunny, perfect for shooting on the range. Furthermore, why does Posner seem to refer to Oswald as a crackshot, when his best result, while giving the appearance of sounding good (Sharpshooter), is only on the 2nd to bottom rung in terms of firing range results in the USMC. Then, on his last shoot, he only finished a couple of points higher than being a wash-out (Marksman).

        – On the 29th of November, the FBI filed two letters on the results of fibre tests on the paper bag that the rifle was allegedly carried in. They were almost identically worded, but one said there was a match, the other said there wasn’t. The problem is, the FBI never actually received the bag until the next day. Why were they dictating letters about a paper rifle bag that they hadn’t even received in their laboratory yet ?

        – Why were the FBI actively reporting on Oswald’s alleged trip to Mexico City, including meeting with the head of KGB assassinations for Latin America (Valery Kostikov), and these files were being marked CI/OPS in the US. That is Counter Intelligence Operations…….yet he returns back to the US and apparently has no-one tailing him except for the odd visit by FBI agent James Hosty, who is in charge of monitoring right-wing groups in Dallas (which Oswald was apparently NOT linked to) ?

        – On the night before he was killed, Oswald tried to ring someone by the name of John Hurt, but the secret service cut off the call. It is believed Hurt may have been a former counter-intelligence officer. There is a very interesting take on it on Dr Grover B. Proctor’s excellent website here:

        http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

        Will look forward to any responses on these points or to my original email !

    • larry naron permalink
      May 28, 2011 10:54 pm

      Your wasting your time on someone who has already made up their mind. If the public wants to know who killed JFK the one man who knows as much as anyone is George HW Bush.He can’t
      remember where he was that day yet called in a phony tip to the FBI about a kid who worked at the Republican headquarters in Houston Texas. I think it may be time for him to get the DVD Berry and the Boys since I can’t imagine him wading through all the written material that you have read.

      • Case Open permalink
        May 29, 2011 1:16 pm

        Hi – thanks for the feedback…yes, I’ve read TOO MANY books on the subject I think.

        For beginners, I just try to stick to the explanation of the SBT, because if you believe that possible, you’ll lean towards LHO as the sole assassin. If you don’t, then by default it has to be conspiracy theory, because Spector built the SBT as his explanation of these wounds with only three shots.

        The GHW Bush thing is interesting, I believe he was snitching on the John Birch Society types. Maybe they had a hand in it, but I gave up on the “If not Oswald – Who ?” question years ago. You just have to be content with SBT to swallow the lone assassin model.

        All of the books I mentioned in my first blog are essential in understanding the case without any bias. I recommend to anyone to get the DVD “Into Evidence” from the US. It’s $140 plus shipping, but you will hear experts on the subject, not junk theories.

        I also like Jim Di Eugenio, even Bugliosi “praised” him of sorts by saying he’s a conspiracy theorist who can have rational & sober arguments at times, and that is about as civil as Vince gets with the critical community.

        One thing people should keep in mind when looking at the events is the government at work to try to pinch off any thought of conspiracy. Refer to FBI memo dated 24/11/1963, where Hoover & Attorney-General Nicholas Katzenbach sat down for a chin-wag. In that document they outline their plan for the case – convince public that LHO was the lone assassin of JFK, that there was no conspiracy, and no foreign or domestic agencies that LHO was acting under orders for.

        And with Hoover in charge of the FBI investigation, including the crime labs & interviewing agents, the lone assassin result was a certainty – all this within 24 hours of the shots being fired !

        Now think of major modern police investigations – how many get tied off in 48 hours like this ???

    • Case Open permalink
      May 28, 2011 11:05 pm

      NB – in my article I wrote that LHO mailed the money order for the rifle from New Orleans, only picked this up when I re-read my article. Of course those who know the case would know he allegedly ordered the rifle from Dallas, well before he departed for NO (rifle allegedly ordered March 1963, in NO during the summer of 1963, returning to Dallas in early October 63).

      The whole rifle order & post office box thing is pretty dodgy, refer to the Jim Di Eugenio article that I pasted into my previous blog, and also referred to by Di Eugenio in his presentation on the DVD set “Into Evidence”.

      • May 29, 2011 6:44 pm

        Thanks for the link to the DVD…I’ll pick them up…
        You’re correct on the rifle order…no one can place Oswald picking up the rifle or pistol…(which both arrived the same day, though ordered months apart..) In fact, it would have been technically impossible for him to do so, under the strict gun laws involving mail order weapons at the time…or ordering ammunition (a deeper story for both is worth seeking)…were was MC ammunition available at that time.?.and are those gun stores…interesting to explore…
        Poor Lee…so adept at defecting and returning without notice…but leaving a traceable record once back home a mile wide…BTW, Mr Carr…what was Lee’s motive?…

  10. Christopher Boyce permalink
    May 29, 2011 12:46 am

    I appreciate the need to avoid unfounded conspiracy theories – but the question must be asked: what was Jack Ruby trying to stop Lee Harvey Oswald from revealing? A lone ranger is not the object of a revenge killing. If a conspiracy by definition involves two or more persons, then Jack Ruby is an undeniable second actor. Why did he kill Oswald, and who arranged or paid or ordered him to do so?

  11. Rod Cuthbertson permalink
    May 29, 2011 1:47 am

    I’ve been to Dealey and to the 6th Floor too (I never could understand why cameras were confiscated and security was so tightly enforced by grim greysuits… I wanted to say to them, “Um… the President’s dead already” – but they looked way too serious for that!)

    Anyhow, I appreciated your article Bob, for its sanity and balance and as a former conspiracy theorist who once championed Garrison but can now see him for the homophobic nutter he was and as one who should now read the Posner book, I have just one question that continues to nag and that I have never seen explained…

    If LHO was the only shooter from the rear, how is it possible that the President’s head (as seen in the Zapruder film) lurches violently backward as though shot from the front and that the back of his head was blown off – as is consistent with a frontal shot?

    Rod

  12. Andrew Russell permalink
    May 29, 2011 9:15 am

    So sad that my second post never made it to the blog. Bob, what is your reference for Oswald being a crack marksman? The lone assassin theory rests on his ability to fire three bullets at the target and hit with two (all in a very short disputed time frame) without any consideration for his magic bullet. If anyone can show that was even a remote possibility, Oswald would be in the frame. So, Bob, who do you cite for Oswald’s marksmanship?

    • Bob Carr permalink
      May 29, 2011 9:24 am

      He left the marines having achieved marksman status ( as opposed to sharpshooter ). He was competent at hitting his target at 200 yards without sights. This was ( I write from memory ) a quarter of that…and he had 4X sights ! All in Posner. Now tell me which conspiracy theory you believe. Who did it ?

      • May 29, 2011 6:52 pm

        The scope on the weapon was mis-aligned when found, and was adjusted for the FBI rifle tests.
        The kick of the weapon was enough that a gunman would have to re sight and re aim manually before firing…tick tick tick…
        CE-399 as entered into evidence is not the bullet found initially by Darrell Tomlinson…there is no chain of evidence linking it to Oswald’s rifle.
        which was found on a stretcher belonging to a patient which was neither Kennedy or Connally…
        http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

        I ask…why aren’t these things cut and dry..for a so called homicide. I’m not exactly looking for errors…they just keep..popping up…

  13. Greg Marshall permalink
    May 29, 2011 9:42 am

    I want to hear more from ‘Open Case’ on this. I had followed this for many years, but not in the last decade of so. My interest is very much re-vitalised. Fascinating posts, thank you.

    • May 29, 2011 5:06 pm

      There is much that has been uncovered in the intervening years…several books are worth noting…
      JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, is very much worth your time…

  14. Augustine Roberts permalink
    May 29, 2011 10:56 am

    Hi Bob,

    I can’t tell if you genuinely believed what you wrote in your article or if it was just a wind up. In any case, for the time being I will take you as being genuine.

    As one of the other contibutors to this page has pointed out, your opening lines about the efficiency of the rifle supposedly used in the assassinatin and LHO’s proficiency with it had you marked as either extremely naive or a pot stirrer.

    The reason that there are conspiracy “theories” surrounding the JFK assassination is because the official version (theory) itself is so utterly implausable and full of inaccuracies and contradictions as to require another explanation. It has nothing to do with psychology.

    It is very easy to criticise the theories that derive from the rejection of the official story because these are obviously not able to be justified through hard evidence (somewhat like the official theory itself). However, don’t criticise that someone has promoted an alternative theory. Once the official story is rejected based on the evidence (or lack of it) a person has little choice but to ask “What really happened, who was behind it and who and why was this covered up?”

    However, it is not a simple task to criticise the deficiences that have been identified in the official story by serious researchers over many decades starting immediately after the assassination.

    Bob, I can only recommend that you and those that support the official story from a point of genuine ignorance spend some time studying its inaccuracies and implausabilities.

    Asking people what their theory is on the assassination and then requiring a standard of proof to support that theory that has not been achieved by the official story is disingenious. This is an extremely important point.

    Ask yourself after doing some proper research on the evidence that has been presented to support the official story if you believe the official story.

    In this vein there are critiques that have been written on Posner’s “Case Closed” that you should read to balance your thinking in regards to his work.

    Chief of Dallas Police at the time of the JFK assassination, Jesse Curry, stated some time after the assassination:

    “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”

    He also stated at the time of the assassination:

    “But just in my mind and by the direction of the blood and brain from the President from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to be fired from the front rather than from behind.”

    If you had studied the evidence of the case you would understand why these statements from the previous chief of police are correct.

    How good would it have been for LHO’s defence attorney to have been able to call the Chief of Dallas Police to testify in a trial against LHO!

    So much for case closed.

  15. John Ruwald permalink
    May 29, 2011 11:28 am

    I read with interest your article “Brought down by a nobody”. Your conclusion “Lone gunman. No conspiracy”, is in my opinion, primarily correct. Oswald did murder the president. There has never been a conspiracy. However, Oswald started a chain of events that no one at the time could foresee. I read a book many years ago entitled “Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK.” If you haven’t already read it, I commend you to do so. It’s a non-fiction book by Bonar Menninger and I quote, “describing a theory by sharpshooter, gunsmith and ballistics expert Howard Donahue, that a Secret Service agent accidentally fired the shot that killed John F, Kennedy.” It convinced me the accuracy of the events of that fateful day and made me understand why the government could never release the truth. I would very much like your opinion if you’ve read it and if not, your opinion after having done so.

  16. Anthony Porter permalink
    May 29, 2011 4:35 pm

    This has been one of the most fascinating discussions that I have witnessed for a long time on this subject. I have always had an opened mind on who was behind JFKs death. The reason for my indecision has been Jack Ruby. For me, and for others, this has never been adequately explained. Ruby’s desperate and vulnerable position to kill LHO seems bizarre to say the least. Two lone nutters LHO and JR, I’m not convinced. I look forward to the discussion continuing.

  17. justin page permalink
    May 29, 2011 7:12 pm

    Further to my previous contribution Bob Carr himself would know to have a Senate committee into any matter, particularly the JFK assassination is not something that would occur at the whim of the house. The committee was formed after many years of unease about the Warren Commission findings. Warren was a very honourable and credible politician and Judge and was selected after serious consideration. He was not part of any conspiracy. He was required to get a finding out there quickly for very serious reasons, no less than the security of the U.S. itself. There is no evidence to the contrary. As the years unfolded more information came to light. Such as Mafia leaders recorded admissions that they were involved in the assassination. It seems to me that if you don’t believe the’ lone nut’ theory you are somehow connected to every nutty conspiracy theory. The lone nut theory is hard to defend. It irrelevant about how many people are capitalising in Dallas Texas in relation to the JFK industry. That happens with everything. We’ve had the crap theories about the CIA in relation to the ‘Dismissal’. Gough sacked himself. The facts are the facts. Lee Harvey Oswald was not a good shot. He was connected to the ‘Freedom for Cuba’ associations. He was a politically active right winger (not conservative or Republican). He was under the surveillance of the CIA and had been for several years. He had met and was an associate of Jack Ruby. He hated the president. He said the words “I’m just the patsy’ which is recorded for time immemorial. Jack Ruby also hated the president and was a Mafia associate. Jack Ruby gave a T.V. interview when dying of cancer (I have seen it) where he said there was more to his killing of Oswald and he wished to get leave to see Warren but it was denied. I actually have applied the ‘ordinary processes’ that I was trained to do and find it is more probable than not that 2 or more people planned and carried out the killing of JFK. That’s what a conspiracy is. Any simple investigator could come to that conclusion which is exactly what the Senate Committee came to. What I think is harder to accept, from either side of this issue, is that JFK was shot to death by greedy little psychopathic self serving gangsters for such a lowly motive that he (JFK) and Robert Kennedy, didn’t live up the promise of their father who bought votes for them, via the mafia. It was purely a revenge killing of the lowest order. All contemporary evidence points to that. Forget about your CIA’s FBI’s and men from Cuba. For those on the’ lone nut’ theory side; forget the theory that JFK and his family didn’t cross a bunch of criminals. That is the most likely reason he was killed; pure Shakespearean revenge from the mafia is noted. Have a look at the book by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann ‘Legacy of Secrecy’ in relation to admissions by dying mafia leader Carlos Marcello. Both are series Journalists and writers. The book was written and released in 2009. I’m sure that Bob Carr understands the principle of circumstantial evidence and even under the most basic test the JFK assassination passes that in regard to 2 or more people having killed JFK.

    • Rod permalink
      May 29, 2011 8:55 pm

      Just a quick one for Justin, Make no mistake Ear lWarren and his commission was as crooked as they come, judge or no judge, Lee Oswald had high regard for JFK and jack Ruby was much more than just an as.sociate of Oswald, he was virtually his God Father. This is not some wild theory, I am passing on known facts . There are people still alive who know these things, read the books I suggest. No theory.

      • Bob Carr permalink
        May 30, 2011 7:47 am

        The correspondence, thrilling as it is, is now closed.

  18. Andrew Russell permalink
    May 29, 2011 10:25 pm

    Hey Bob

    I notice my response debunking the myth you put in your article that Oswald was a crack shot didn’t make it to your blog (again!). Who knows what people will think! I mean, people might think you didn’t want some people to think for themselves… hey, but there I go again, drumming up a conspiracy when there isn’t one!

    Cheers, Bob – you brightened my weekend!

  19. michael j permalink
    May 30, 2011 6:42 am

    I believe Oswald acted alone. He was a trained marksman. He was anti American with anger problems.He hated USA, defected to Soviet Union, then hated it there,came back to USA ,and hated it again.The guy was a shocking loser. He was working at the book depository as a storeman because he was basically unskilled. It was opportunistic. Ruby was patriotic, had access to Dallas police headquarters, carried a gun and acted impulsively when the opportunity arose.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: