Skip to content

Wanna Know Who Killed JFK, Honey?

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Posted by Sarah P.


In 1993, around the 30th anniversary of the assassination of American President John F. Kennedy, there was a flurry of television documentaries all examining the well-worn paths of those conspiracy theorists who persistently claim that there was something conspiratorial about the killing. It was not news to most people who were actually alive at the time of the assassination, just entertaining, as the documentaries could not prove a conspiracy actually happened, just vociferously protest that one occurred. However, to a fourteen-year-old, like myself at the time, the Kennedy assassination debate was fresh fodder, especially for one keen on analytical reasoning; I figured an answer was possible, there just hadn’t yet been someone who could put all the pieces together coherently. And my fourteen-year-old brain was also quiet excited by the likelihood of a high-level, widespread, powerful conspiracy to kill one of the most popular (and handsome) American presidents ever.

Well, I was not up to the task of sussing out who, or what, was responsible, definitively and conclusively, for the killing of the president. I heard what everyone had to say, tried to put all pieces together, and came up with a mish-mash of information, allegations, contradictory statements, and, in the end, not much in the way of irrefutable proof either exonerating or condemning the roles Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA, the FBI, Soviets, or any melange of the aforementioned, in the assassination.

And while I’ve been intrigued by the entire debate since then, I’ve never been wholly convinced by JFKeither side. There have been some hundreds of books on the topic, none of which I’ve been induced to read. There have been some subsequent documentaries I’ve caught on television, and of course I saw the Oliver Stone movie “JFK”, but that’s been pretty much it. Until Vincent Bugliosi’s book, “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” (I say book, but around here we’ve been calling it a tome. It comes in at 1518 pages before endpapapers – most of which are found on an accompanying CD – and it’s very heavy.)

And finally I have the answers. Written in a comfortable, conversational style (expected of a confidant and expert prosecutor summing up his case), “Reclaiming History” is engaging to read, irrespective of its subject matter. But ultimately, it’s immensely satisfying to read because, finally, if even in my own mind, I feel like it answers all those questions my fourteen-year-old self had. Lee Harvey Oswald did it. Alone. There were three, and only three, bullets. It was a single bullet, not a magic bullet. And while the Kennedy family has always played its cards close to its chest, nothing they did at the time, or have done since, has hidden anything from the public for any other reason than dignity. There, I said it. I am now, what they call in the conspiracy theory camps, a LN – lone nutter.

Lee Harvey Oswald I can’t prove to you why I believe what I do, at least not in this format. But Bugliosi can, in his book. I’ve only read (so far) the first 800 or so pages, and I’ve stopped for a pause. Part of the reason I’m taking a break is because of how Bugliosi has structured his book; the first 317 pages are a meticulous reconstruction of the four days in November 1963, which include Kennedy’s killing and Ruby’s killing of Oswald. The next 193 are an examination of the investigations (including the Warren Commission and the House Representative Select Committee on Assassinations, the autopsy, the Zapruder film, and the single and magic bullet theories. And the next 276 are a complete biography of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The remainder of the book (which I have not yet read) goes through all the conspiracy theories and debunks them, one by one. The main reason I haven’t slogged through that part yet is that, after some perusal, it seems like all the questions have already been answered in the first half. And in large part, Bugliosi’s job in the second half of the book is proving just how silly the conspiracy theorist are with the evidence presented in the first have of the book, and I don’t need much convincing (not to mention re-reading of what Bugliosi has already proven).

Bugliosi’s evidence in just the first 800 pages is compelling and satisfying because it finally rents the shrouds of “mystery” and mis-information that the conspiracy theorists love to cast on the events surrounding the assassination. He has beautifully simple and expertly supported evidence, and loves to make fun of the conspiracy theorists for their lack of answers and clarity. He commonly refers to the lack of intelligence and common sense in the arguments of the theorists, and the utter lack of proof to support their position. He refers to many conspiracy allegations as “silliness,” and I’m inclined to agree.

Bugliosi’s book is a good example (in contrast to the theories put out by the seemingly uniformed multitude ofThe Assassination of President John F. Kennedy theorists) of what Einstein was talking about when he said “If you can’t explain simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Now, while Einstein was talking about irrefutable truths, and Bugliosi is making a case for a long succession of events leading up to the assassination, and is doing so a considerable time after the fact, Bugliosi relies upon facts, facts that are hard to refute. And they are those facts that I have come to believe as truth, because they all fit together so beautifully.

Another fantastic quote to refer to here is Occam’s Razor: “Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.” Basically, the simplest explanation that answers all the questions, should be seen as the correct one. And Bugliosi presents just that, flying directly in the face of what I started to see 14 years ago – a confusion of contortion, lies, self-interestedness, and craziness that are the conspiracy theories. There’s a reason I couldn’t figure it out before. I hadn’t heard the truth. And in Bugliosi’s book, I believe I’ve found the closest thing to it that is possible after so many years. llewopharas

28 Comments leave one →
  1. Sarah P permalink
    Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:39 am

    P.S. If you disagree with Bugliosi, I welcome a friendly debate. If I see more aggressive comments (like the kinds I received last time I posted this article), they will be deleted. I will try to respond to the best of my ability to any intelligent, respectful remarks. Thanks :)

  2. Sarah P permalink
    Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:47 am

    James, to answer your question posited last time I had this article up:

    The “magic bullet” theory told us that JFK and Governor Connolly (who were both in the limousine, and were both hit) were hit with the same bullet, but that bullet would have had to do a “dog-leg” turn in mid-air to accomplish said feat. This, in fact, is not so.

    The governor was not, as often portrayed, sitting directly in front of JFK. Because he and his wife were sitting on a jump-seat in front of the first couple, he was down and to the left of JFK. On top of that, he was twisted (to speak to his wife, or wave to the crowd on the other side of the street, I’m not sure) at the time of impact.

    Because the bullet in question did not hit anything but soft flesh in JFK, it passed on and downwards into Connally’s back, exited Connally’s chest, deflected off his wrist, and due to loss of momentum, came to rest in a shallow wound in Connally’s leg. This was the bullet later recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

    Not only has ballistics show this to be possible, no bullet (the one that did penetrate JFK’s upper back/lower neck) was found in the limousine other than fragments from the one that hit him in the head. And, to make things really neatly packaged, in order for Connally to have been hit the way he was, either JFK would have had to move out of the way of the bullet, or shot Connally himself – JFK blocked the trajectory necessary for Connally to have been hit in the way he did.

  3. James17930 permalink
    Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:11 am

    Good to know. Also — kudos for using a line from ‘The Rock’ as your post title.

  4. James17930 permalink
    Monday, February 18, 2008 11:17 pm

    Here’s the latest on this story:

  5. Sarah P permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:09 am

    Yeah, saw that on BBC. All I can say is, far-fetched indeed. I suspect it is a movie script Wade was working on…nothing in the official transcripts (which would be clearly marked) had any contact between Oswald and Ruby, and in carefully reconstructed timelines for both, they did not have contact with each other.

    Anyway, it will only fuel the fire…

  6. tony almatta permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:14 pm

    Just so you know Sarah, there are autopsy photos in the official record that werent taken by the autopsy photographers…under oath in depositions for the ARRB, autopsy photopgrapher John Stringer said pictures he took arent in the official record, and pictures he didnt take are…can you debate that…

  7. Sarah P permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:21 pm

    Tony, I have read about Stringer’s comments. My first reaction is that the possible evidence given by Stringer does not refute the weight of evidence from the other sources, including the evidence about what happened in Dealey Plaza.

    Secondly, in his ARRB testimony, Stringer said he did not shoot basilar, or inferior (indicating below) views of the brain. But when crossed, and asked again if he took photos of the basilar section of the brain, he replied, “I think so, yeah. Whether I took that [photo of basil view shown to him], I don’t know.” Hardly conclusive, and compelling evidence to outweigh the testimony of the pathologists performing the autopsy.

    On top of that, Stringer does not contest the nature of the wounds to Kennedy’s brain. And Stringer’s credibility is damaged because he’s changed his story several times regarding whether or not, and how, the pathologists cut Kennedy’s brain for examination. He’s not the kind of witness you want to pin any sort of conclusions on. And he’s a lone voice in a chorus of testimony that points away from your implications that there doctored results of the autopsy.

    I think that this point highlights perfectly what I’m getting at about the conspiracies. Testimony, given 15 years later, where the witness is unsure of him/herself, is taken as some form of evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill the President. However, it is very hard for me to see the straight line through the evidence that could point to a conspiracy. I mean, what if the photographer wasn’t wrong? What if there were other photos taken. What does that prove? Did Stringer absolutely disown all photos of the President’s brain that were presented? What if there was a second photographer (which I don’t believe)? Why would these seeming omnipotent killers, powerful enough to elude capture or any direct evidence that pins them to the killing for over 40 years, allow a photographer into the autopsy that they didn’t already control? Why would they allow pathologists to perform the autopsy if they weren’t already colluding in the murder? The rest of the evidence comes to very strong conclusions – ones that the Warren Commission came to. The mess of conspiracy theories hardly come to more than that – a mess of conclusions that do not come together into a coherent argument.

    In my opinion, if you look at Stringer’s testimony, given so many years after the event, in an atmosphere that was ripe for suggestion and allegation planting in the imagination of everyone, and the real, substantive value and reliability of the Stringer testimony, it still doesn’t come to a very big hill of beans.

  8. tony almatta permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:18 pm

    So, John Stringer said under oath that he knew all the photos taken during the autopsy werent his b/c he didnt shoot that particular kind of film…Sandra Spencer said there were autopsy photos taken that she didnt develop at the Naval Photographic Center…Without any question there were 2 separate arrivals of the casket at Betheseda Naval Hospital, can you explain that…The Oswald rifle was sent back from D.C. to Dallas b/c there werent any fingerprints on it…The funeral home director has said FBI agents came in the middle of the nite to obtain Oswald’s fingerprints, and the mortician Tom Robinson said under oath that there was a hole in the back of the President’s head that he patched with rubber…Clint Hill, Jacqueline Kennedy’s personal secret service agent said under oath there was a baseball size hole in the back of JFK’s head…He should know b/c he was the only ss agent to react in Dealy Plaza…Do you need the list of other ss agents who have said there was a conspiracy…How can you dismiss all the circunstances pointing to a conspiracy…By the way, John McCone, Director of the CIA, told RFK there was more then one shooter…

  9. Sarah P permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:59 pm

    You forgot Hoover, who also suspected that there was a conspiracy. And yet, still, all that you have said can be put down to erroneous statement, statements that are seeking attention, poor memory, and contortions of truth. I can’t, from the points you have made, make any clear determinations that it was A, B or C who/that killed Kennedy. But I can, if you wish, make a compelling argument for Oswald – or you could just read the book (Bugliosi puts it much better than I, even if he is rather- nay, extremely – condescending to the theorists out there).

    Theorists like to use partial truths. For instance, it is not that there were no fingerprints on the rifle; there were three partial fingerprints that did not have enough points to absolutely identify anyone, though it is important to say that all the points that were visible do correspond to Oswald’s fingerprints (there are so many points of similarity necessary to say for certain that prints belong to someone to the exclusion of all other people, and the prints didn’t hold enough information do do so). The faint palm print, already lifted in Dallas, was not seen in DC, but the fingerprint guy for the FBI (I can’t remember his name) said it was possible he had missed it because it was so faint.

    For me, it comes down to this: if the conspiracy is true, it sucks in everyone. From Zapruder, to Secret Service agents, to Dallas police men, Bethesda pathologists, everyone on the Warren Commission, everyone on the ARRB, etc. That is just impossible for me to believe. To what end? What purpose would it serve for all these people to come together in a massive conspiracy to kill the President? And how do all those points you’ve made, plus the thousand other points, come together into a coherent story?

    And what about Officer Tippet?

    By the way, Tony, thanks for being such a good debate partner – there are some out there who would not treat a dissenting view with respect. You have. Kudos.

  10. tony almatta permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:59 pm

    Thanks Sara, but I still dont think you have answered my questions…This is why it has been kept from the American people for 40+ years…You arent willing to go to the Abyss for the Truth…You dismiss everything that doesnt cohere with the official report…That is all find and dandy in the beautiful court room with lawyers dismissing this and that b/c of hear say or not a worthy witness or inadmissable…If you control the evidence, you control the outcome…Do you realize what happened that day…to this country…Why was Clint Murchinson, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys at the time, a wealthy Texas oil man, so interested in the Jim Garrison Case…Personnally, I would like never to think or talk about this subject, but I am surprised about how easily you dismiss evidence…You forget quickly that it would take only one individual in the SS to orchestrate the hit…that is Emory Roberts…w/o any doubt Nixon, Hoover,and Johnson knew it was going to happen whether actual participants or not…that is an accessory to the fact…lets not mention the Texas oil famililies…by the way can you explain what George Bush I was doing that day…or are all those declassified documents about his activity in the CIA and the Cuban Exile Community all created by overzealous liberal conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do but take on the govt…By the way William Casey, Director of the CIA during the Clinton Administration said, The CIA owns everyone of any major significance in the national media…
    The room at the table is very small, things are kept compartmentalized on purpose, very few know what actually happened, but there was more than one involved…

  11. Sarah P permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:56 pm

    You are right when you say that I will believe official reports over hearsay. I have to put my trust either in a system that is made up of people who have been trained to do their jobs, from the lowest ranking police officer to the upper echelons of the FBI (whom I trust less than the cop), or I have to believe a group of people who have, so often, shown to be less than reliable. Bugliosi has provided, if nothing else, evidence of thorough investigation (his sources are incredibly complete).

    I can understand the frustrations of people who believe there has been a gigantic cover-up. They get little respect (and Bugliosi does himself a disservice in being so, well, rude to them) because they have little coherence. Any nut can stand up and say something wacky and if it’s strange enough, it will also be impossible to disprove, except using personal opinion about common sense (which has little to do with being common at all). And it casts the rest of the theorists in a really bad light. But, still, how can I convince someone who believes there was a conspiracy behind the killing that there wasn’t? I can’t, plain and simple. When I interpret something one way, and they another, it’s the end of the conversation.

    I think theorists enjoy/believe/create the theories for several, personal reasons. Firstly, I think it’s because they don’t want to see something so non-sensical happen. And I believe it was just that. Lone nutter can refer to Oswald too. Kennedy, like his brother, was a hero, and beloved from many sides. By today’s sensibilities, he was glamourous, powerful, and a great leader. It’s crying out for a dramatic, powerful ending, instead of a pathetic act by a pathetic man. I also think that they are often draw to the drama and the excitement. When someone says A happened, and someone says B happened, it can be interesting to play out the possible reasons why. Look what it did for Ollie Stone!

    I have to draw my own conclusions. I am not well versed in this – I believe I was clear in the article that I’ve only seen what the “average” North American viewer has seen. I’ve heard the stories, and they don’t fit. There are a million and one inconsistencies with the official report, but dismissing them, as I have, as human error instead of newly revealed fact, seems to make more sense than building a drama around them. Bugliosi’s interpretation, though not iron-clad, makes the most sense to me.

    I would be interested in a complete theory, that accounts for everything – all the inconsistencies, misstatements, allegations – that comes up with a reasonable, rational solution. Was Oswald a patsy? Did he pull the trigger? If not, who did, and why did they do it with Oswald’s gun? Who would trust someone so unstable as Oswald to pull of something like that (if he was the one who actually pulled the trigger on someone else’s behalf)? Instead of problems with the official story, where is the hard evidence that something else happened, or are the theories just based on problems with the “official account?”

    I’m not sure what questions I have not answered (I’m not familiar with the claim that there were two arrivals of the casket – remember, I’m only half-way through the book). I can’t cite, chapter and verse, reasons why I don’t believe particular conspiracy theories – I’m not that well informed. But to believe the evidence (yes, as concluded by the official investigations, especially by the Dallas Police), nothing else I’ve heard is as convincing as Bugliosi’s re-creation of events. If you can give me one (or point me to a credible site that would give me one), I would be interested.

  12. James17930 permalink
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:28 pm

    You’ll probably find the answers to those questions in the second half of the book.

  13. tony almatta permalink
    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:01 pm

    Sarah you might want to read about the arrival of a 2nd casket at Bethesda, the descrepancies of the autopsy photographs, and the ballistic evidence…Quite frankly, there are too many bullet fragments b/c there were more than 3 shots fired…My god the first shot misfired…Thank God you take so much trust in the government…My only question is if the Warren Commission found that Oswald acted alone, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations found there was a probable conspiracy to kill the President involving the Mafia,
    then which government is really in control…

  14. Sarah P permalink
    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 pm

    From what I understand, the ARRB’s determination that there may have been a conspiracy is based largely on the acoustic evidence that there were more than three bullets, which has since been disproved. And from what I have read, the bullet fragments do not add up to more than two. In fact, fragments collected from JFK and the limousine come in under one bullet. But I’m going to trust my source, and you trust yours, and thus, an impasse.

    And it’s not a government I’m putting my trust in. Or their findings. It’s the evidence upon which they base their decisions. Evidence from the day of the shooting, which put Oswald there, his gun there, and most witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying they heard three shots (and, strangely enough, three shells found in the TSBD).

    Sometimes, the much more difficult to refute evidence of a lone gunman gets in the way of other evidence that might prove inconsistencies of the “sanctioned” version. When you ask about extra photos, and 2nd caskets, I think, it doesn’t matter because of the evidence that puts Oswald there, doing what he did in three bullets. The evidence to convince me that that didn’t happen has to be a lot stronger than what I’ve seen.

    I would like to read more than I have been able to find about the 2nd casket. I’ve I’ve read Bugliosi’s version, and he questions why, if you’re trying to perpetrate a high-level cover-up of the murder of the president, do you bungle it so horribly by having two very different caskets show up, with two very different kinds of body wrapping (body bag vs. sheets). I think someone’s wrong. Not covering up for anyone. Just simply wrong.

    And that’s the thing. I have still yet to see how, even if a 2nd body showed up, or there was another corpse there – how does that prove conspiracy. Connect the dots for me. Not just that one point, but all the holes the theorists have poked in the “official story.” How do they fit together to prove the Mob, the CIA, the FBI, the Soviets, or someone else was really behind it? Make the individual points come together in a coherent argument. Because Bugliosi has done that, and I haven’t seen (in my admittedly limited exposure) that from the theorists’ side. Can you give me one? Can you give me a website that will give me one?

  15. James17930 permalink
    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:36 pm

    I got caught up on the whole ‘Loose Change’ thing for a little while — I watched the movie and everything they said seemed to make sense. Then, I read a debate that was staged between the filmmakers and the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine, who had devoted an entire issue to debunking the claims made in Loose Change, based on the physical evidence.

    And it made me realize just how easy it is to claim conspiracy. One of the Pop. Mech. guys had a great line, something like: “To a conspiracy theorist, there are never any coincidences and never any mistakes.” That really made me open my eyes; yes, sometimes certain things do happen, especially in huge and panicked situations like 9/11 or a president being shot, that don’t make sense. People mess things up, people make mistakes. A person’s recall 15 years later is hazy, or someone writes down the wrong thing on a form. All these things, and many more, could easily happen on any given day in any situation — it doesn’t mean there are dots there to be connected to prove a conspiracy.

    Sarah’s point, and, I think, Bugliosi’s, is that a discrepancy in the interpretation of evidence does not a conspiracy make. A smeared palm-print does not mean the guy never held the gun or someone planted it afterwards — it means it was smeared for any number of reasons.

    Something needs to be proved with direct evidence, not a lack, or misinterpretation of evidence.

    That being said, it’s okay, and good, to ask questions. I still have questions about 9/11. Just try not to formulate the answers to those questions without actually researching them first.

  16. Tony Almatta permalink
    Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 am

    You are mistaken about the bullet fragments…They were everywhere in the limo including a bullet hole right thru the windshield, a dent on the top rim of the front metal trim of the roof of the limo,and a bullet picked up in the grass across from the grassy knoll on the other side of elm street…There was a shooter on the 2nd floor of the Dal tex building, on the roof of the County Records Building, and can you explain the discovery of the fingerprint in the shooter’s nest which wasn’t Oswalds, in fact it was Malcolm Wallace’s, LBJ’s henchman…As for the 2nd arrival of a casket, David Lifton meticulously documented that in his book Best Evidence after interviewing the Honor Guard and individuals at Bethesda…In the Sibert and O’neil FBI report it states that when the body was removed from the casket it was apparent there was surgery done to the head…No one touched the President’s head in Parkland…There you have it in an official FBI report…Pre-autopsy done to the President’s head…That is very dark and implicates a cover up…No way around that one…Can you explain the blood and debris that covered the trunk of the limo, and of course why was the limo immediately sent away to be cleaned, the windshield was replaced, and it was completely painted…There is evidence to the contrary about your presumption that the acoustic and ballistic evidence has been disproven…Texas University came out this fall with ballistic evidence contrary to what you are stating…In fact it points to a conspiracy, but of course that is wishful thinking…

  17. Tony Almatta permalink
    Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:45 pm

    Sarah take a look at this…

  18. Tony Almatta permalink
    Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:48 pm

    And can you explain this…

  19. Sarah P permalink
    Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:48 pm

    Tony, thank you for the links. The first one took me to a page that made allegations and suggestions, but was, in my opinion, devoid of any actual theories about what did happen. It raises questions, but offers no answers to those questions, except to say “see, there must have been a conspiracy.” That, as I have said, doesn’t need more explanation than some are wrong, some are lying, or the sources have been misquoted. Any or all of the above.

    I would like to add that the book being advertised on that site is being published by J.F.K. Lancer, one step away from self-publishing. The kind of editorial standards at the Lancer, as far as sourcing and establishing facts, will be interested in proving conspiracy. Bugliosi’s book is published by W.W. Norton, a company of long-standing, academic, and professional repute. Could there be a reason (other than a bunch of powerful, murderous men in control of every facet of Western life are in control of every respectable media outlet) that Mr. Law’s book is being published in that way. I am not suggesting he doesn’t have points to prove – just that I question how rigorous his fact-checking has been.

    The second site, the Lancer site (which I have found before, but not really delved into), does just what I find most frustrating; it presents a slurry of facts that do not appear to joint together in any coherent argument. I could contest each piece of suspicious evidence here, but Bugliosi’s already done it, and I don’t have nearly the space he did. Is there a site that puts all these dissenting voices together? That makes a claim about who did it, why, and how? Something that explains all the alleged shooters, all the bullets, all the damage, all the different opinions about the wounds (all, including those who agree with Warren’s findings), all the autopsy results, photos, interrogation information, Ruby’s activities – everything. ‘Cause that’s what I loved about Bugliosi’s book. He does just that. And does it well.

    With a site like that, I would have something to either agree or disagree with. I could tackle an argument that says “the CIA did it,” or “LBJ did it,” because it would either have strong, coherent, well-sourced argument, or it wouldn’t.

    I will continue to look at the Lancer to see if I can find some satisfying conclusions. Until then, I’m still a LN.

  20. Tony Almatta permalink
    Friday, February 22, 2008 11:14 am

    Sarah, have you ever read the grand jury testimony of Billie Sol Estes, and can you explain the Sibert and O’neill FBI Report…You seem to not answer questions which unravel the official Warren Commission Report…

    Can you explain this article…

  21. Sarah P permalink
    Friday, February 22, 2008 1:04 pm

    Bugliosi does not like Douglas P. Horne one bit, if his 14 pages devoted to Horne’s conclusions are any indication. My first question about the veracity of the theory is this…why would the conspiracists go about the whole thing this way? Why not just find another “patsy” to be sitting behind the fence? If they were going to frame Oswald, why not do it so bullet wounds, as seen and heard by hundreds of people right in Dealey Plaza, match up? The Zapruder film seems to be clear on where the shots came from, and the nature of the wounds to Kennedy’s head. Why not just shoot Kennedy from the TSBD, instead of placing a 2nd shooter you just have to cover up for?

    And why buy off the pathologists performing the autopsy and supplemental brain exam(s), but not the photographer? How stupid a conspirator do you have to be? Apparently Stringer wasn’t even approached to be convinced to lie, at least, not that he’s said. So why use him at all? So he can make things complicated later on? It doesn’t make sense.

    But to address Horne’s allegations from a strictly factual sense (not a common sense one)….

    The theory depends heavily on Stringer, whom I’ve already said I don’t find to be a very reliable witness, doesn’t remember taking the photos. Maybe he “misremembers” (to use a recently created word by Roger Clemens), or maybe he’s lying. Maybe he used a different type of film that day, and forgot about the change. But no, neither of those arguments are as convincing as someone finding a different brain and having that examined.

    And Horne’s sources and citations are missing. He makes statements I can’t prove or disprove, because he doesn’t say where he got it from. And his juggling of dates about the location of the autopsy report proves nothing. Evelyn Lincoln was working at the National Archives when she received the footlocker (that contained the autopsy report, and the physical evidence that Horne is talking about) from Kennedy. She gave a sworn, signed affidavit to the HSCA that about a month later, RFK directed her to give the footlocker to Angela Novello, his personal secretary. Novello, accompanied by the Asst. Archivist for the presidential libraries, Herman Kahn, took possession of the keys and the footlocker. A year and a half later, it turned up in the possession of a Kennedy family friend, Burke Marshall. When he returned it to the archives, Novello still had the keys.

    Much Horne’s theory relies on Lifton’s work. And of Lifton’s work, the chief pathologist for for the HSCA, Dr. Michael Baden, said “[his] theory – and I hate to even call it a theory – is totally bizarre. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support his claims.” Those claims are the ones about the alterations made to Kennedy’s body.

    Anyway, hope I answered at least one question this time.

  22. Tony Almatta permalink
    Friday, February 22, 2008 1:24 pm

    Why can’t you discuss the Sibert and O’Neill Report? Is it b/c your man didnt talk about it in his book? And you might want to check out the declassified document from November 22, 1963 from George W. Bush to FBI Director Hoover one half hour after the assassination in regards to a James Parrot,
    he’s the one they were going to make #2 shooter…Find it if you care…

  23. Sarah P permalink
    Friday, February 22, 2008 2:39 pm

    I’m fully up front with the fact that my argument is Bugliosi’s argument. I believe Bugliosi, and he does address the Sibert and O’Neill’s recollections (and the contradictions therein), I just didn’t feel like quoting Bugliosi’s full book. If you want to know what I think, read the book. That, I believe, was the point of the original article – not my incredible volume of knowledge and sources, but Bugliosi’s. Nothing I say, or don’t say, should reflect on his book.

    I have found said memo (regarding Bush and Parrot). What does it prove? It proves that Bush told the CIA there was someone threatening the President’s life, and maybe he was responsible. Oh. So, naturally, there was a conspiracy. And the Bush in the memo was a business man, not a CIA agent. So it certainly doesn’t jive with the memo that says another Mr. George Bush, an agent this time, was reporting that the anti-Castro groups in Florida were upset with the assassination. Either they knew him as an agent or as a business man…which is it?

  24. Tony permalink
    Friday, February 22, 2008 4:38 pm

    Bush denies being in the CIA though its apparent he dates back to the Bay of Pigs…
    I would also note his connection to George De Mohrenschildt, who died before he was to testify to the HSCA…Coincidentally, John Roselli and Sam Giacanna both died before they were to testify to the HSCA…All business men with connections to the CIA…I also would like to say there is a picture of someone who looks just like George Bush I standing below the School Book Depository right after the assassination…So, I wonder why he says he doesn’t know where he was that fateful day, and why he waited until the President was dead to notify the authorities about a James Parrott…This whole thing could have been laid to rest if the Connally family would have agreed to have the bullet fragments removed from John Connally’s body after her died…It’s interesting to note how his version of the story has changed…

  25. Michelle Dessler permalink
    Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:13 pm

    Very interesting posts. Would like to mention Gaeton Fonzi, investigator for HSCA.

  26. Chloe O'Brien permalink
    Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:16 pm

    Let’s straighten this one out.

  27. DougNTexas permalink
    Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:00 pm

    Why did the SS call off the agents riding on the back of the car right before they turned in to the Plaza? Johnson’s girl friend said Johnson told her the night before that “they would never embaress him again after tomorrow”. What did they do with the film that was confiscated and never revealed of the actual shooting? What was that little sly wink about on the plane during the swearing in? I fuly think the mob and the CIA worked together to do it with the full knowledge of Johnson, Nixon, Bush and Hoover.

  28. Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:53 am

    Yes, cause LBJ and Nixon were so buddy buddy. ..and Bush was so involved in politics in the early 60s while he was living in Houston running his oil company…

    Oh wait – yes, you might be right. If we refer to the recently uncovered 7-point plan found among Nixon’s personal papers written in 1956, while he was vice-president. It reads:

    “My [Nixon’s] Massively Absurd Conspiratorial Plan to Become President:

    1. Lose to JFK in the 1960 election
    2. Lose the 1962 California governor election
    3. Move to New York City and become a lawyer with hardly any influence over national politics
    4. Have full knowledge of a plan to assassinate JFK in 1963
    5. Wait for LBJ to become president and continue much of the progressive policies favoured by JFK
    6. Wait for LBJ to then become massively unpopular because of the Vietnam War and decide to not run again for reelection
    7. Become president”


    Well, that pretty much seals it for me. Unless of course anyone has any evidence to the contrary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: