New Books on the Kennedy Assassination
New Times, No. 38, 21 September 1966, pp. 30 ff.
Several
books have appeared lately which seriously question the official Warren
Commission account of the circumstances of the assassination of President
Kennedy. Two such books ion the United States are “Whitewash” by Harold
Weisberg and “Inquest” by Edward Jay Epstein. In Switzerland a book by
Joachim Joesten is due to come off the press shortly. A number of articles in
the periodical press likewise challenge the Warren Commission findings. In a
study in the New York Review of Books
the American journalist Richard Popkin analyzes the new publications on the
subject, and his conclusion is that the Kennedy assassination was the outcome of
a carefully laid plot in which influential quarters were implicated.
In this and further issues of New Times we are printing some excerpts from Mr. Popkin’s study.
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, a solution emerged
within hours: one lonely alienated man had done the deed all by himself. The
investigation by the Dallas police and the FBI then proceeded to buttress this
view. The Warren Commission, after many months of supposed labour and search,
came out with a conclusion practically the same as that reached by the FBI,
except for details as to how it happened. The ready acceptance of this by the
press and the public—except for a few critics—suggests that the American
public got the kind of explanation it wanted, and perhaps deserved. Western
European critics can only see Kennedy’s assassination as part of a subtle
conspiracy, involving perhaps some of the Dallas police, the FBI, the Right-wing
lunatic fringe in Dallas.
Two books just published move the discussion to a new
level. Harold Weisberg’s noisy, tendentious “Whitewash” (which, for some
good and probably many bad editorial reasons, no publisher would touch) is
nevertheless the first critical study based on a close analysis of the
twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission report. Edward Jay Epstein’s
“Inquest,” a remarkably effective book, presents startling new data about
the internal workings of the Commission. The material suggests not that the
“official theory” is implausible, or improbable, or that it is not legally
convincing, but that by reasonable standards accepted by thoughtful men, it is
impossible, and that data collected by the FBI and the Commission show this to
be the case.
Before these writing appeared, there were already strong
reasons for doubting that Oswald did all the shooting alone, or at all. The
majority of eye- and ear-witnesses who had clear opinions as to the origins of
the shots thought the first shot was from the know or the overpass.[1]
All of the commission’s obfuscation notwithstanding, Oswald was a poor shot
and his rifle was inaccurate. Experts could not duplicate the alleged feat of
two hits out of three shots in 5.6 seconds, even though they were given
stationary targets and ample time to aim the first shot. No reliable witness
could identify Oswald as the marksman. No one saw him at the alleged scene of
the crime, except Brennan, who did not identify him later in a line-up. All of
this indicates that Perry Mason, Melvin Belli, or maybe even Mark Lane, could
have caused jurors to have reasonable doubts that Oswald did the shooting, or
did all of the shooting.
The :hard: data relied on by the Commission are that
Kennedy was hit twice and Governor Connally at least once; that Oswald’s rifle
was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository,; that three shells ejected
from Oswald’s rifle were found by the southeast window of the sixth floor;
that Oswald’s palm print is on an unexposed portion of the rifle. All of the
certainly made a suggestive case that, difficulties notwithstanding, all of the
shooting—three shots—was done by Oswald with his own rifle. Now the material
presented by Epstein and Weisberg undermines the Commission’s case in two
ways. First, they closely examine both the sequence of the shots and the
available medical evidence in order to demonstrate that all three shots could
not have been fired by Oswald. Secondly, they show that the Commission’s
theory is in conflict with the FBI’s on a number of crucial points; indeed,
one can only conclude either that both theories, considered together, are
impossible, or that they establish that more than one assassin was firing at the
President.
Two of the most important pieces of evidence underlying
this demonstration are the FBI’s summary reports on the case and the film
taken by Abraham Zapruder, a bystander during the assassination. The film
established the time when Kennedy could have been hit, and Connally could have
been hit. The speed of Zapruder’s camera is 18.3 frames per second and his
film shows that Kennedy was hit between frames 208 and 225. It is clear from the
medical and photographic evidence that Connally was shot between frames 231 and
240. This leaves less than 2.3 seconds between shots one and two; and the
Commission found that it is physically impossible to pull the bolt and reload
Oswald’s rifle faster than once every 2.3 seconds (without aiming). Therefore
it was impossible for Oswald to have wounded both the President and Connally in
separate shots.
If the FBI data are correct, then Kennedy and Connally
were hit by separate bullets, and the time interval between these shots is much
too short (less than two seconds) for both to have been fired from Oswald’s
rifle. Hence either another gun was employed, or two different marksmen were
shooting. The Commission holds to the theory that the Governor was hit at the
same time as the President. The pictures, however, definitely show him without
noticeable reaction when Kennedy had already been struck. Connally’s clear
testimony is that he heard the first shot (and the bullet traveled much faster
than the speed of sound), looked for its source to the right and to the left,
and then was struck.
The Commission makes bullet No. 399[2]
the key to its theory. But bullet No. 399 raises all sorts of problems. First,
almost all of the medical experts, including two of the Kennedy autopsy doctors,
held that No. 399 could not have done all the damage to Governor Connally.
Second, other bullets shot from Oswald’s rifle through
any substance became mashed, unlike pristine No. 399, which is supposed to have
gone through two human bodies, and have smashed Connally’s rib, wrist, and
entered his femur.
Third, no one knows near whose stretcher No. 399 was
found. It was found by a Mr. Tomlinson, when he adjusted two stretchers blocking
an entrance to a men’s room. At this stage of our knowledge of the case,
neither Mr. Tomlinson, nor anyone else, knows which stretcher the bullet came
from, nor whether either Kennedy or Connally was ever on either one of them. The
Commission made no effort to track down what happened to both Kennedy’s and
Connally’s stretchers. Anyone could have entered the hospital. It was full of
newsmen, spectators, Secret Service men, FBI men, and according to the
management, the place was a madhouse.
Fourth, when, late on November 22, the bullet was turned
over to the FBI expert, Robert Frazier, it didn’t need any cleaning. Weisberg
claims that somebody must have cleaned the bullet earlier and thereby destroyed
valuable evidence. However, it may never have been dirty or soiled.
Another piece of evidence that seems to be something
different from what the Commission supposed is the brown paper bag found on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository. This is the bag, that, according to the
Commission, was made by Oswald on the night of November 21–22 at Irving,[3]
and used by him to bring the rifle into the Book Depository. As Weisberg neatly
shows, there are problems with all the information about the bag. First of all, both Marina Oswald and Wesley
Frazier (who drove Oswald to Irving) report that he had nothing with him on the
evening of the 21st. The Commission was sufficiently worried on this
point to recall Frazier and ask him if at some earlier time Oswald had paper
with him, to which he answered, “No.”
Next, the only two people who ever saw the bag, Frazier
and his sister, described a bag around 27–28 inches, whereas the found bad is
38 inches long. Both Frazier and his sister described it by referring to its
position when Oswald carried it, its appearance, and where it was located in the
car; all these gave results of around 27 inches. The longest part of Oswald’s
rifle, when disassembled, is 34.8 inches. Despite serious efforts to get Frazier
and his sister to change their estimate of the bag’s size, they stood fast.
The only explanation that seems to resolve the conflict is that there were two
bags, the one Frazier and his sister saw and the bag that was found.
If I am right that the bag that was found and the one
that was seen are different, this means the rifle entered the Book Depository at
a different time from Oswald’s entrance on November 22, and that there was
genuine premeditation in Oswald’s actions, to the extent of fabricating
evidence that would mislead the investigators.
Why should Oswald have tried to implicate himself as the
assassin? I shall try to suggest why in what follows.
The twenty-six volumes contain numbers of strange
episodes in which people report that they saw or dealt with Oswald under odd or
suggestive circumstances. These instances, and there are many of them, were
dismissed by the Commission (though it continued to consider them up
to the very end), principally on the grounds that they occurred when Oswald
apparently was not there, or they involved activities Oswald reportedly did not
engage in, such as driving a car. However, in many of the cases dismissed by the
Commission, the witnesses seem reliable. For example, Bogard, a car salesman,
reported that on November 9, 1963, a customer cam in to his showroom, gave his
name as Lee Oswald (and, or course, looked like the late Lee Harvey Oswald),
went driving with him and told him that he (Oswald) would come into a lot of
money in a couple of weeks. No only did Bogard have the corroboration of his
fellow employees and an employee’s wife, but he was also given a lie-detector
test by the FBI. The FBI reported on February 24, 1964, that “the responses
recorded were those normally expected of a person telling the truth.”
Cases such as the Bogard episode have attracted the
attention of critics from the time of Leo Sauvage’s article in Commentary
in the spring of 1964. If these cases could
not have actually involved Oswald yet seem actually to have happened, then
what? The Commission chose to dismiss them. Leo Sauvage suggested someone was
trying to imitate Oswald, that there was a second Oswald. Critics have brought
up the second Oswald as an insufficiently explored phenomenon that might throw
light on the case.
[Continued in No. 39, pages 30 ff.]
The record compiled by the Commission indicates that as
far back as Oswald’s stay in New Orleans, some strange conspiratorial
activities were going on. On the one hand, the correspondence of Marina Oswald
and Ruth Paine indicates that Oswald was unhappy both because of his family life
and his economic life. On the other hand, from late May onward, Oswald started
his pro-Castro activities, corresponded actively with the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee in New York, the Community Party, and the Socialist Workers Party,
usually giving them false or misleading information about his activities. He
made no effort to change his FPCC organization from a fiction into a reality; it
never had any members except Oswald. Oswald made no effort to look for local
Leftists or to seek sympathizers; he lied about his organization, claiming it
had thirty-five members, that it met at people’s homes, that he, Oswald,
received telephone or postal instructions.
These deceptive activities culminated in August 1963 with
Oswald’s visit to the anti-Castroites, Carlos Bringuier and friends, and his
expression of interest in joining their para-military activities. In a few days
he followed this with his distribution of FPCC literature near their
headquarters, which caused a fight with them (they felt they had been betrayed
by him). But according to the reports of the police and others, the fight was
not a fight at all; Oswald simply put his arms down and told Bringuier (a former
functionary under Batista) to hit him. Subsequently, Oswald pleaded guilty to
disturbing the peace, when he was clearly innocent, and Bringuier pleaded
innocent, when he had in fact struck the blow. In jail Oswald demanded to see
the FBI, and tried to convince agent Quigley that he, Oswald, really
was involved in pro-Castro activities. Oswald sent distorted reports and
clippings of his achievements to the FPCC, and, in an undated memorandum to
himself, outlined all of the data he now had to show that actually was a
pro-Castro activist. The memorandum seems to have been designed for the Cuban
Embassy in Mexico.
The he apparently went to Mexico City on September 25th,
visited the Cuban Embassy and asked for a transit visa to go to Russia via Cuba.
Though the Commission’s report says that Oswald came back to both the Cuban
and Russian Embassies, there is no evidence that he really pressed his case.
Whatever the point in the abortive Mexican trip, which seems to have involved
some mysterious and yet unexplained elements, at the same time a series of
unusual events was occurring in Texas. On September 25, the day Oswald left for
Mexico, a second Oswald went into the office of the Selective Service Bureau in
Austin, Texas, gave his name as Harvey Oswald, and wanted to discuss his
dishonourable discharge. Yet Oswald at
this time was riding a bus toward Mexico. The Report dismisses this because
Oswald wasn’t in Austin. But it is somewhat confirmed by reports that Oswald
was seen that day in a café in Austin by a printer and a waitress.
On the evening of September 25, a Mrs. Twiford of Houston
received a phone call between 7 and 9 p.m. Oswald could not have been in Houston
then, yet it appeared to be a local call. Oswald claimed he wanted to see Mr.
Twiford, the Socialist Labour Party leader for Texas, before flying
to Mexico. Could it have been the second Oswald creating mystifying data about
Oswald’s whereabouts?
On September 26, the striking incident involving Mrs.
Sylvia Odio is supposed to have occurred. Mrs. Odio, a Cuban refugee leader in
Dallas, reported to the Commission that she and her sister were visited by two
Latins and one “Leon Oswald,” who claimed they had come from New Orleans,
were about to leave on a trip, and wanted backing for some violent activities.
In a phone call the next day, Mrs. Odio was told more about Leon Oswald by one
of the Latins called Leopoldo:
“The next day Leopoldo called me¼then he said, ‘What do you think of the American?’ And I said, ‘I didn’t think anything.’ And he said, ‘You know, our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba because he is great, he is kind of nuts¼He told us we don’t have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that¼And he said, ‘It is so easy to do it.’”
She was also told that Oswald had been in the Marine
Corps and was an excellent shot. When Mrs. Odio heard of the assassination, she
was sure these men were involved. When she saw Oswald’s picture, she knew.
The Commission made sporadic attempts to discount Mrs.
Odio’s story, but kept finding that Mrs. Odio was quite a reliable person,
sure of what she had reported. The only conflicting evidence was that of a Mrs.
Connell, who said Mrs. Odio had told her she had previously known Oswald and
that he had spoken to anti-Castro groups, which if true would indicate that
Oswald had been more involved with anti-Castro elements in the Dallas area than
Mrs. Odio admitted.
In August 1964 the Commission apparently became concerned
about the Odio episode, thinking it might really
indicate a conspiracy. The Commission had figured out that Oswald actually had
enough time to leave New Orleans, come to Dallas and meet Mrs. Odio, then go on
to Houston and Mexico, though this seemed very unlikely. It was probably with
great relief that they received the FBI report of September 21, 1964. This
stated that on September 16 the FBI had located one member of the group that had
visited Mrs. Odio and he had denied that Oswald had been there, but had given
the names of the other two, one of whom was a man “similar in appearance to
Lee Harvey Oswald.” The FBI said it was continuing research into the matter
and “The results of our inquires in this regard will be promptly furnished to
you.” The Commission seems to have been satisfied that it had established that
Oswald had not visited Mrs. Odio, and did not care that it appeared to have also
established a strong possibility that there was a double for Oswald, that is, a
man who looked like him and may have used his name. One would have expected
that, if the Commission had really been interested in clearing up all of the
questions and rumours about the case, it would have stopped everything, located
this man and the other two, found out if he had been masquerading as Oswald,
and, if so, why Weisberg uses this as crucial evidence that the Commission had
established a conspiracy, and subsequently ignored it.
On October 4, when Oswald was back in Dallas, the manager
of radio station KPOY in Alice, Texas, reported that Oswald, his wife and small
child visited him for twenty-five minutes, arriving in a battered 1953 car. The
Report diligently points out that (a) Oswald didn’t drive, and (b) he cold not
have been in Alice at that time. The incident is the first of several in which
it appears that Oswald and his family may have been duplicated. Instead of
seeing it as past of a possibly significant pattern and considering it further,
the Commission was satisfied once Oswald had been dissociated from the event.
A second group of incidents can be traced from early
November until November 22, almost all in the Dallas-Irving area. (Irving is the
Dallas suburb where Marina Oswald lived with Mrs. Paine.) On November 6th
or 7th, someone looking like Oswald came into a furniture store in
Irving, looking for a part of a gun. (The store had a sign indicating it was
also a gun shop.) This person then went out and got his wife and two infants out
of a car, returned and looked at furniture for a while. The children turned out
to be exactly the ages of the Oswald children. Two people saw and talked to this
Oswald and later identified him and Marina as the people in question. The
“Oswalds” then drove off, after getting directions as to where to find a gun
shop.
This may well have been the day an Oswald took a gun into
the Irving Sport Shop (right near by), an episode that occurred in early
November. A clerk in the shop found a receipt on November 23 that he had made to
a man named Oswald for drilling three holes in a rifle. (Yet Oswald’s rifle
had two holes and they were drilled before Oswald got the gun.) An anonymous
caller told the FBI about this episode on November 24. The receipt seems
genuine; the clerk is sure he ran into Oswald somewhere, and the clerk seems
reliable. His boss was convinced, but the Commission dismissed the case since
there was no evidence that Oswald owned a second rifle.
On November 8, two marked cases of double Oswaldism took
place in Irving. Marina has unequivocally stated that Oswald did not come to
Irving on November 8. Yet a grocer, Hutchison, reported that on that day Oswald
came in to cash a cheque for $189, payable to Harvey Oswald. He claimed that
Oswald subsequently came to the store once or twice a week in the early morning
and always bought a gallon of milk and cinnamon rolls, items that Oswald
probably would not have purchased, according to Mrs. Paine and Marina. Such an
event as the attempt to cash a cheque is no doubt memorable (and, as Marina
wondered, where would Oswald get $189?). Also, a barber, right near the grocer,
reported Oswald came into his shop on the 8th with a
fourteen-year-old boy, and they both made Leftist remarks. The barber said
Oswald had been in his shop on previous occasions (although it seems unlikely
that Oswald could have been in Irving at any of those times) and had indicated
he had been in Mexico.
The second Oswald became more active on the 9th.
The real Oswald spent the whole day at the Paine house, writing a letter. While
Oswald was writing his long letter, two second Oswald cases occurred. One was
the Bogard incident, which I have already mentioned, when an Oswald tested a
car, driving over 70 miles per hour and dropped hints about receiving lots of
money in a couple of weeks. This memorable performance at the Ford-Lincoln
agency was coupled with one of the first appearances of a second Oswald at a
rifle range. From November 9th onward someone who looked just like
Oswald was noticed at the Sports Drome Range, by several witnesses, always at
times when the real Oswald could not have been there. The second Oswald was an
excellent shot, who did a number of things to attract attention to himself,
firing odd weapons, shooting at other people’s targets, etc.
From November 12 until November 21, Oswald himself did
not go to Irving. But a second Oswald is reported on November 13, at the grocery
store in Irving with Marina; and on the rifle range on the 16th, 17th,
20th, and 21st. One very suggestive sign of a second
Oswald is a report by a waitress that he had come into the Dobbs House
restaurant on North Beckley on November 20 at 10 a.m. (when the real Oswald was
at work) and had become very nasty about the way his order of eggs was prepared.
At this time, Officer J.D. Tippit*
was there, “as was his habit” each morning at this hour, and glowered at
Oswald. (The FBI, in this report, rather than being excited at this sign that
Oswald and Tippit had encountered each other before November 22, merely
commented that Oswald was reported to have worked from 8 until 4:45 on November
20. The also showed no interest in why Tippit stopped on North Beckley each
morning when it was not in his district or near his home.
The next major, and final, report of the second
Oswald’s appearance is right after the assassination. One eyewitness to the
shooting from the Book Depository, J.R. Worrell, saw a part of a gun sticking
out of the building, heard four shots (and he is one of the few who heard four,
rather than three) and ran behind the building. He there saw a man come rushing
out of the back of the building and run around it in the opposite direction.
According to a Dallas policeman, K.L. Anderton, Worrell told him that when he
saw Oswald’s picture on TV, “he recognized him as the man he saw run from
the building.”
A few minutes later Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig saw a man
run down from the Book Depository to the freeway, get in a Rambler station
wagon, and drive off. Craig tried to stop the car, but failed. When he later
reported this, he was asked to come down to police headquarters and look at the
suspect they had in custody. He immediately and positively identified Oswald as
the man he had seen get in the car and be driven away.
Sic transit
Oswaldus secondus.
[1] Not from the Book Depository, where Oswald is supposed to have been.—Ed.
[2] Supposed to have struck both victims.—Ed.
[3] The Dallas suburb where Oswald’s wife Marina lived.—Ed.
* The police officer who according to the official version was shot by Oswald about an hour after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22.—Ed.
Back to New Times
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to WC Period